I. Introduction

Introduction

I. Introduction

long history of conflict surrounds the Restoring and protecting these ecosystems Colorado River. Throughout the first will require that water be dedicated to these part of this century, disputes gener- purposes. This will involve rethinking the way Aally arose over securing rights to use in which water use is planned, and incorporat- the river’s water. Later, disputes centered on ing concepts of sustainability into decisionmak- finding ways of developing and delivering ing. For example, if water markets are to be water to support economic growth. The con- created to help reallocate water to its highest flict-ridden process of “dividing” and then valued use, then there needs to be a commit- “developing” the waters of the Colorado preoc- ment to have them contribute to an environ- cupied water planners throughout most of the mentally sustainable river system. If dam 20th century. operations are going to be modified to allow As the end of this century approaches, the for more efficient use of water resources, then Colorado River basin is at a critical juncture. In the impacts on aquatic ecosystems should be 1990, for the first time, the lower U.S. portion considered. To merely reallocate water towards of the basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the environment without a philosophical shift used its full 7.5 million acre-foot (maf) legal in water management is equivalent to treating entitlement,1 spurring a time of unusual tur- only the symptom of a larger failure. Water for moil and transformation. Reaching this thresh- ecosystem restoration will need to come from old has caused water officials to begin rethink- existing uses or improved management prac- ing management strategies for the river. They tices. Fortunately, there are numerous ways are beginning to examine conservation, of freeing up water that are not being widely improved management, and voluntary trans- utilized at this time. fers of water as strategies to promote more effi- At this juncture, there is a choice between cient use of water and to redistribute it toward conflict and fragmentation on the one hand, higher-valued activities. and cooperation and integration on the other. Because the upper basin currently uses Throughout the histo- approximately 50 percent of its basic entitle- ry of the Colorado’s Stakeholders of the river are beginning ment and is not expected to use its full entitle- management, piece- to realize that the current predicament ment for some time into the future, water meal attempts have does not represent a “zero-sum game,” planners erroneously believe that there is been made to solve and that solutions through cooperation enough water in the “system” to meet the the problems of water are not only possible but desirable. needs of the lower basin for the next 50 years. quality and scarcity. It is thought that the single most important task Years of conflict between basin states as well as facing lower basin water managers is to develop severe environmental degradation show that the mechanisms that will move water to its this fragmented approach is ill-suited to the highest valued use, while continuing to satisfy challenges that face the region. Stakeholders the needs of current users. What many basin of the river are beginning to realize that the interests fail to recognize is that even at a time current predicament does not represent a when a significant percentage of the river’s “zero-sum game,” and that solutions through flow has yet to be utilized for human purposes, cooperation are not only possible but desirable. the river’s ecological systems are always in a The historic series of compacts, treaties, state of deteriorating health because of major and legislative acts that emerged from the disruptions in the quantity, timing, and quality piecemeal efforts to resolve conflicts in the of the natural flows of the river. basin is collectively known as the “Law of the

1 Western United States water publications make use of the measure “acre-foot” rather than the more widespread metric equivalents for water volumes. Because all of the legal and institutional water allocations on the Colorado River are based on this unit, we will use it here. For our international readers, one acre-foot equals 1,233 cubic meters. Metric units are used for all other measures in this publication.

1 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

River.” It constitutes the legal and institutional framework for Colorado River basin manage- Major Components of the ment, as well as the framework within which 2 all parties now negotiate for the future. “Law of the River” Because of the way the Law of the River was created, amended, and modified, each of the • The Colorado River Compact of 1922 river’s stakeholders now holds a different The 1922 Colorado River Compact, negotiat- “hand of cards.” For instance, due to agree- ed by the seven basin states and the U. S. gov- ments negotiated in the early 1920s and the ernment, divided the Colorado River basin into mid-1930s, respectively, the urban areas of upper and lower portions and specified Lee’s Nevada and California have limited rights to Ferry, Arizona, located at the mouth of Glen Colorado River supplies and are currently des- Canyon, as the dividing mark. At this time, the perately seeking more water to meet growing upper basin states worried that plans for demands. Arizona, on the other hand, current- Hoover Dam and other lower-basin water pro- ly has an abundance of Colorado River water jects might deprive them of future use of the rights, but more than half of them have an river because of the western water law doctrine of prior appropriation. The 1922 compact extremely junior priority due to concessions apportioned beneficial consumptive use of the made in the early 1950s. During times of Colorado’s water on the basis of territory rather drought, Arizona’s supply will be the first to be than prior appropriation, which allowed devel- cut back, and for Arizona, reliability is its high- opment to proceed in the lower basin while est concern. In general, most farming commu- safeguarding supplies for the upper basin. nities of the lower basin are well endowed The compact negotiators assumed they were when it comes to water rights. Their rights are apportioning an average annual flow at Lee’s senior and entitlements are more than suffi- Ferry of 18 million acre-feet (maf). They allocat- cient to meet their needs. However, as water ed 7.5 maf annually to both the upper and laws are now structured, there is little incen- lower basins for beneficial consumptive use, tive for them to conserve, due to a system that and gave to the lower basin the right to the permanently takes away water that is not additional 1 maf annually assumed to be available from tributaries in the lower basin. being put to beneficial use. Anticipating that dry cycles might diminish An understanding of the Law of the River water availability in the lower basin, the is critical to considerations of how to achieve Compact required the upper basin to release to more sustainable patterns of water use within the lower basin at least 75 maf during every the lower Colorado basin. The following inset consecutive ten-year period. The Compact also provides brief descriptions of the most impor- stipulated that any amount allocated to Mexico tant compacts, treaties, federal laws, legal by future treaty would come equally from the decisions, and court decrees spanning nearly upper and lower basins. Finally, the lower basin three-quarters of a century that determine retained the right to use any water that the how the waters of the Colorado River are now upper basin was not yet able to put to use. allocated and managed. Many believe that • The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 there is sufficient flexibility within the Law of the River to deal with the challenges that The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 pro- face today’s water managers and stakeholders. vided congressional approval of the 1922 The Law of the River, as it currently exists, pro- Compact, which had been ratified by all of the vides a stable framework within which most basin states except Arizona. The Arizona legislature did not ratify the Colorado River Compact parties feel comfortable working, and repre- until 1944. In approving the 1922 Compact, the sents a sound and secure foundation from Act implicitly endorsed the Arizona (2.8 maf), which to plan for the future. However, California (4.4 maf), and Nevada (0.3 maf) it should be pointed out that the Law of the River has been amended, modified, and refined throughout the century as unsolvable problems 2 Sources: Howe and Ahrens 1988, Flug and Jackson 1993, Ingram et al. 1991, U.S. Bureau of and unique circumstances have Reclamation undated.

2 Introduction

apportionment of the lower basin’s 7.5 maf. full 7.5 maf annual allotment, it would fail to meet The Act also authorized the construction of Boulder its obligation to provide at least 75 maf to the (later called Hoover) Dam for water supply, flood lower basin during any consecutive 10 years. By control, and hydropower generation in the lower building a large reservoir near Lee’s Ferry, the upper basin, as well as the All American Canal for delivery basin could store water during wet periods and of water to California. In addition, the Secretary release it during dry periods, helping to meet its of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, compact obligations while maximizing its own sup- was authorized to enter into contracts for the ply. Besides regulating the flow into the lower storage of water in Lake Mead and the delivery basin, Glen Canyon Dam, like Hoover Dam down- of water for irrigation and urban use. stream, became a major generator of hydroelectric power and a “cash register” (through power sales) for constructing other water-supply projects. • The United States - Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 • Arizona v. California Supreme Court Decision In 1944, the U.S. and Mexico signed a treaty on and Decree, 1963-64, the Colorado River committing the United States to deliver 1.5 maf per year of Colorado River water to This major decision of the U.S. Supreme Court Mexico. It said nothing, however, about the quality settled eleven years of litigation stemming from of this water, which was not explicitly resolved until Arizona’s desire to build the Central Arizona Project 1973 in a separate agreement. In times of surplus, (CAP) so that it could use its full Colorado River it was agreed that Mexico would receive an addi- apportionment. California disagreed with Arizona’s tional 200,000 acre-feet per year. In accordance contention that it was entitled to 2.8 maf of water with the 1922 Compact, the upper and lower from the mainstem of the Colorado River, claiming basins were each to supply half of the total amount that Arizona’s 2.8 maf basic apportionment includ- obligated by treaty to Mexico. ed tributary flows from within the state. The Supreme Court rejected California’s argument ruling that the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 • The Upper Basin Compact of 1948 had determined Arizona’s apportionment to be 2.8 The Upper Basin Compact of 1948 allocated maf not including tributary waters of the state. The Colorado River water among the upper basin states Court’s 1964 decree also enjoined the Secretary of as percentage shares of the annual volume avail- the Interior from delivering water outside the able, and based on each state’s contribution to the framework of entitlements defined by law. river’s flow: Colorado (51.75%), Utah (23%), In its opinion in Arizona v. California, the Wyoming (14%), and New Mexico (11.25%). Supreme Court also granted five Native American Arizona (a northern portion of which is in the tribes along the Colorado River reserved rights to upper basin) received a fixed allocation of 50,000 river water dating back to the establishment of af per year. their reservations, with the total amount of these rights to be quantified according to each reserva- • The Colorado River Storage Project tion’s “practicably irrigable acreage” (Ingram et al. Act of 1956 1991). Despite the 1908 decision Winters v. United States, in which the Supreme Court gave native In 1956 the Colorado River Storage Project Act American tribes priority to large amounts of water, was signed, authorizing construction of several the 1922 Compact negotiators had not addressed dams, including Glen Canyon Dam, which, when Indian water rights, leaving the issue to the courts completed in 1963, formed Lake Powell on the and Congress. The issue continued to be ignored Arizona-Utah border. The reservoir is able to hold until this 1963 ruling. These native American enti- the equivalent of two years of the Colorado’s annu- tlements are to be met from the water apportion- al average flow. The dam was supposed to be the ment of the state in which the tribe is located. engineering solution to a problem that became evi- (Bates et al. 1993). dent during the decades following the signing of the 1922 Compact: the average flow of the river was considerably less than the Compact negotiators • The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 had assumed. Emerging hydrologic evidence sug- The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 gested that if the upper basin were to consume its authorized construction of the Central Arizona

3 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Project (CAP) and other water development projects • The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 in the upper basin. However, in order to mollify The Grand Canyon Protection Act requires the California’s concerns about reliability of supply in Secretary of Interior to operate Glen Canyon Dam dry years and consequently gain California’s sup- in such a way as to protect and improve the values port in Congress, Arizona agreed to subordinate for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen CAP’s entitlement to that of California’s full basic Canyon National Recreation Area were established. apportionment of 4.4 maf. As a result, in times of This marked the first time that protection of down- shortage, deliveries to CAP will be eliminated stream river resources were identified as a primary before California’s entitlements are affected. purpose of a Colorado River dam. The Act ensures that water releases from Glen Canyon Dam will • Minute 242 to the 1944 US-Mexico Treaty, stay within a range that protects the safety of 1973 Grand Canyon river rafters and boaters and that This addendum to the original 1944 U.S.-Mexico better maintains the sand beaches along the river treaty was signed in an effort to resolve a dispute uses by these boaters. The Act thus raised the pri- with Mexico over the deterioration in quality of the ority of recreational values and lowered the priority Colorado River water crossing the border. The water of hydropower values in the operation of the dam. quality crisis was brought about in large part by the development of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation dis- Though not formally part of the “Law of the trict in Arizona and the dumping of its agricultural River,” a number of federal statutes have bearing drainage waters into the Colorado River. The salt on how the Colorado River is, or could be, man- content of river water entering Mexico rose from aged. The three most important are the Clean about 800 parts per million (ppm) to approximately Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the 1500 ppm, with levels reaching as high as 2700 National Environmental Policy Act, each of ppm in late 1961 (Wahl 1989). Minute 242 stipulat- which may impose habitat maintenance or environ- ed that the water received by Mexico should have mental protection mandates onto existing water salinity levels no more than 115 ppm higher than rights allocations, dam operations, or river manage- the water arriving at Imperial Dam. ment procedures. They potentially could be used, for example, to strengthen the case for maintaining • The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control some levels of minimum in-stream flows to protect Act of 1974 aquatic habitats and species. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act — which requires This Act was passed by the U.S. Congress to help that federal agencies consider the environmental meet the Minute 242 obligation. Among the mea- impacts of their actions — the Secretary of Interior sures authorized by the Act were construction of a called in 1989 for a full assessment of the environ- desalting plant at Yuma, Arizona, as well as a mental impacts of the operation of Glen Canyon 10,000-acre reduction in irrigable acreage in the Dam. This led to an expanded Glen Canyon Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District, either by pur- Environmental Studies research program, which chase or through eminent domain (Wahl 1989). could lead to specific recommendations for alternative dam operations that are more environmentally sensitive.

presented themselves. Thus, improving or mod- patterns of water use in lower Colorado River ifying the Law of the River so that it can more basin. The choice is increasingly clear: Down efficiently address the new challenges facing one road is the daunting task of trying to fix the river’s stakeholders is a viable option. new problems within an existing framework In sum, a golden opportunity now exists for that has proven not to work. Down the other water planners and diverse groups to work is the opportunity for an innovative, compre- together to reform water policies and manage- hensive, and lasting approach to river basin ment procedures to promote more sustainable management.

4 Current Water Planning and Management

II. Current Water Planning and Management

he management and protection of more problems than they solve, and the fact water resources in the western United that few good sites remain. Yet efforts to explore States have reached a crucial period. non-structural alternatives have not been widely TIn the last several years, it has encouraged. Only a handful of water suppliers become obvious to many that traditional water and planning agencies have explored demand- policies, which permitted the region to become side management and improvements in water- the agricultural and economic force it is today, use efficiency as a means of reducing the are not up to the task of meeting the chal- projected gaps. While this is certainly an lenges of the 21st century. Yet water institu- improvement from the past, traditional plan- tions and policymakers have shown limited ini- ning approaches and a reliance on traditional tiative to develop new tools and approaches to solutions continue to dominate water manage- try to understand and address the nature of ment actions. these new challenges. Two trends exemplify A major problem afflicting the lower the deadlock now gripping water management Colorado River basin is the inability of water in many regions, including the Colorado: the planners from seven different states and two conflict between urban, agricultural, and envi- different countries to gain consensus on priori- ronmental water interests, and the inability of ties and values for the use of water. The competing parties to agree upon adequate poli- current lack of agreement on a guiding ethic cies and standards that protect the renewability for water policy has led to fragmented deci- of the basin’s freshwater resources. sion-making and incremental changes that During the 20th century, water-resources satisfy no one. Some suggest that the problem planning has typically focused on making pro- is primarily technical and that we only need jections of variables such as future populations, more efficient technology and better manage- per-capita water demand, agricultural produc- ment practices to satisfy the needs of all tion, and levels of economic productivity to interests involved. Others believe that only a predict future water demands. As a result, tra- reorganization and integration of the region’s ditional water planning always projects future now fragmented water planning process will water demands independent of, and typically rationalize water policy. Most likely the solution larger than, actual water availability. Planning is a combination of then essentially consists of suggestions of alter- the two beliefs. What is needed for the coming decades native ways of bridging this apparent gap Sound water policy is an integrated planning process between demand and supply. for the 21st century that will resolve water conflicts by The present method for projecting water will require solid plan- setting new goals and priorities for demands assumes that future societal institu- ning, innovative think- water-resource management. tions and desires will be virtually identical to ing, and consensus those in place today. Resource, environmental, building. Currently, there is no agreement on or economic constraints are rarely considered. how the community of the lower Colorado Even ignoring the difficulty of projecting River basin should be using its limited freshwa- future populations and levels of economic ter supply. There are only conflicts and litiga- activities, there are many limitations to this tion over every new proposed policy. What is approach. Perhaps the greatest problem is that needed for the coming decades is an integrated it routinely produces scenarios with irrational planning process that will resolve water con- conclusions, such as water demand exceeding flicts by setting new goals and priorities for supply and water withdrawals unconstrained water-resource management. One goal of this by environmental or ecological limits. report is to explore how water planners and In the past, the traditional response to these stakeholders might begin to plan together for a water balance deficits was to build major new sustainable water future. The following inset facilities, but this option is rapidly closing provides a description of the agencies and because of federal and state budget problems, institutions of the lower basin that now play a the perception that such structures often cause major role in the region’s water management.

5 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Agencies and Institutions of the Lower Colorado

Arizona Management Plans, see the discussion on groundwater overdraft. ) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Central Arizona Water Conservation District The Arizona state legislature established the (CAWCD) Arizona Water Commission (AWC) in 1971, repre- The Central Arizona Water Conservation District senting the state’s first effort to manage water (CAWCD) is a multi-county water agency created in resources centrally. Assimilating the powers and 1971 to repay to the federal Treasury the reim- duties of various state agencies, the responsibilities bursable costs of building the Central Arizona of the AWC included defending Arizona’s rights and Project (CAP). The CAWCD is also authorized to claims to interstate streams such as the Colorado operate and maintain CAP and to collect charges River, planning the development of water, working for water deliveries. Encompassing Maricopa, Pima, with the federal government on water projects, and Pinal counties, the CAWCD is administered by supervising dam operations, collecting water data, a fifteen-member board which is popularly elected and planning long-term water management at the by residents of the three counties. Decisions made statewide level (ADWR 1994). In 1980, largely due by the CAWCD regarding pricing structures for to sweeping changes in groundwater laws under agricultural and urban water users will directly the Groundwater Management Act (GWMA), the affect the rate at which Arizona moves toward uti- state legislature expanded the AWC to form the lizing its full Colorado River basic entitlement. Department of Water Resources (ADWR). Assigned the additional goal of eliminating long- California term groundwater overdraft in the state, the ADWR was given an array of regulatory tools to California Department of Water Resources arm it as the enforcer of the new Groundwater (CDWR) Code. In addition to serving as the primary agency Currently, the CDWR’s official mission is “to man- responsible for groundwater management and reg- age the water resources of California, in cooperation ulation, the ADWR was assigned the task of provid- with other agencies, to benefit the state’s people ing technical assistance to the state courts then in and protect, restore, and enhance the natural and the process of adjudicating the major streams of human environments.” Principal responsibilities of the state (ADWR 1994). The expansion of the the CDWR include developing and managing the ADWR’s legal authority in 1980 made it the pre- State Water Project, updating the California Water dominant influence in the quantification of surface Plan, assisting local water agencies, educating the and groundwater rights as well as the principal public, and providing flood control and public safety. authority in deciding how water resources of the Primary responsibility for statewide water plan- state were managed, planned, and protected. ning in California lies with the CDWR. For the last Unlike Nevada’s Colorado River Commission and four decades, long-term water planning efforts California’s Colorado River Board, Arizona does not have been focused in the “California Water Plan.” have a state agency that deals solely with Colorado The original California Water Plan was published in River issues. Positions taken by the state of Arizona 1957 as Bulletin 3. Now officially known as Bulletin on matters concerning the Colorado are most 160, updates to the California Water Plan have often derived by the ADWR. been published in 1966, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1987, Long-term planning for the state occurs in two and, most recently, 1993 (with an official final forms: 1) the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, report released in the fall of 1994). While responsi- which is a statewide assessment of present and ble for planning at the statewide level, the projected future water resources by region and Department allows much of the planning specific source type, and 2) the “Management Plans,” to the Colorado River to be handled by the which are a series of groundwater management Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, plans geared towards the eventual elimination of the Colorado River Board of California, and irriga- groundwater overdraft in selected regions of the tion districts of the region. state. (For a more detailed description of

6 Current Water Planning and Management

Colorado River Board of California (CRBC) serve as the state’s watchdog over the Colorado River. Among its other statutory responsibilities, the In 1937, the California state legislature estab- Commission is required to “receive, protect and lished the Colorado River Board to represent safeguard, and hold in trust for the state of California’s interests on matters concerning the Nevada” all the water and associated rights to Colorado River. The ten-member Board is com- which the state is entitled under federal law (NCRC posed of representatives from the six public water 1990). While the CRCN does not hold any official agencies that receive Colorado River water, the planning responsibilities, it began producing a directors of the Departments of Fish and Game and Colorado River Water Budget for Nevada’s share of Water Resources, and two public members. Besides the Colorado River in 1983. The Budget is used as monitoring and analyzing the events in the a planning tool providing “projected estimates for Colorado basin, the agency also serves as the future water demands, supply capabilities, and forum through which California’s official position return flow requirements through the year 2013” on Colorado River matters can be discussed and (NCRC 1990). made public. Federal and Other Agencies Nevada US Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) Founded in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation is a In the 1970s when federal money was being federal agency within the Department of the channeled towards statewide resource planning Interior that has historically been responsible for efforts, the Nevada Division of Water Resources the construction of water development projects in (NDWR) created its first statewide inventory of the western United States. As of recent decades, water resources called “Water for Nevada” the Bureau’s role has evolved to include manage- (NDCNR 1995). Developments in the early-1990s ment of water resources and protecting fish and show a revived interest in statewide planning. wildlife. Serving the role of “rivermaster” for the “Nevada Water Facts,” a statewide look at avail- lower Colorado River, the Bureau is responsible for able and projected water resources and demands, operating the Colorado River System of Reservoirs was published by the Division of Water Planning in and authorizing contracts with water users. 1992; however, the report represents more of a resource assessment than a “plan.” Efforts to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) develop a comprehensive statewide management plan are currently being undertaken. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) serves as the A draft State Water Policy was released in March point agency within the Department of the Interior, 1996 providing the framework and principles upon implementing the Secretary’s trust responsibility for which a State Water Plan can be based. The State Indian tribes in the United States. The BIA works to Water Policy “was prepared to guide the develop- ensure that the interests of Indian tribes are pro- ment, management, and use of the state’s water tected and acts as a facilitator between the federal and related lands” and will serve as the foundation government and Indian tribes. Concerning water upon which regional management plans, once they issues, the BIA reviews technical studies, federal are completed, will bring the principles to fruition. and state policies, and regulations making recom- In 1989 a governor-appointed 13 member Advisory mendations on the tribes’ behalf. Board for Water Resources Planning and Development (ABWRPD) was created “to provide US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) local government involvement in the development of the water policy and water plans” (NDWR The principal responsibility of the Fish and 1995). In developing the State Policy, the ABWRPD Wildlife Service (Service) is to protect and enhance held 10 public meetings over a two and a half year fish and wildlife and their habitats for the benefit period (NDWR 1995). of the public. The Service holds the primary authority for listing endangered and threatened species in Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) accordance with the Endangered Species Act and developing and implementing recovery strategies In 1935, the Nevada legislature created the for stressed ecosystems. Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) to

7 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership regulations and policy for salinity control in the basin. Consisting of representatives from the seven The Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership basin states, the Forum worked to establish a policy was formed in 1992 by the ten Indian tribes of the for salinity abatement in the lower basin. Numeric Colorado River basin that have quantified water criteria for allowable total dissolved solids levels and rights to waters of the mainstem. Settlements were an implementation plan were developed by the made through court decree, Congressional legisla- Forum in an effort to control salinity in the basin. tion, and statutory law. The Ten Tribes Partnership “seeks to protect and develop tribal water resources, advance tribal influence over the numer- Seven Colorado River Basin States/Ten Indian ous aspects of river management that affect tribal Tribes Group (7/10 Process) interests, and stimulate dialogue with states, feder- Beginning in the early 1990s, representatives of al agencies, and non-Indian water users on matters the seven Colorado River basin states and the ten of concern to tribes” (Checchio and Colby 1993). Colorado River Indian tribes began discussions to The tribes of the Partnership are: address the problems facing the Colorado River basin. Known as the “7/10 Process,” state and Lower Basin Upper Basin Indian tribes officials have deliberated methods of Chemehuevi Southern Ute improving water use efficiency, new river manage- Fort Mohave Northern Ute ment strategies, and voluntary water transfers in Colorado River Ute Mountain Ute order to extend supplies and reduce the risk of Quechan Jicarilla shortages. Cocopa Navajo Nation While there are numerous other local, state, and regional agencies that affect the waters of the Colorado, they have mostly an indirect role in the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) planning and management processes. Water users of the Colorado River basin also play an important In 1889 an International Boundary Commission role in shaping how the river is managed and are was established in accordance with the provisions discussed in more detail throughout the report. of a Convention signed between the United States and Mexico in that year. Pursuant to the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty, the Commission’s name was changed to the International Boundary and Water Commission and was assigned the task of carrying out the principles of all past and present treaties. The IBWC maintains the status of an international body and is composed of two independent Sections — one in both the United States and Mexico (United States 1944).

Colorado River Salinity Control Forum (Forum) During the 1960s and early 1970s, increasing salinity levels in lower reaches of the Colorado River became a concern for both lower basin users and users in Mexico. The Colorado River Salinity Control Forum was created within the United States in order to correct growing problems associated with water quality degradation — particularly salinity. The EPA, in 1974, required the Colorado River basin states, acting through the Forum, “to adopt and submit to the EPA water quality standards for salinity, including numeric criteria and a plan of implementation” consistent with the EPA’s newly created

8 Water “Imbalance” in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Present Supply and Demand

III. Water “Imbalance” in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Present Supply and Demand and planning. the long-term average flow of the river was hile the upper Colorado River close to 18 million acre-feet per year (Gleick basin will play an integral role in 1988). the long-term management of the The Bureau of Reclamation currently esti- Wriver, the focus of this report is mates the average flow to be 15 million acre- the lower basin in the U.S. and the Republic of feet (maf) measured at Lee’s Ferry, the official Mexico. We fully recognize that optimal solu- point dividing the upper and the lower portions for a sustainable basin can only be tions of the basin, 17 miles south of Glen achieved by considering the river as a whole, Canyon Dam (USBR 1995).3 An additional 1 and through cooperation among all stakehold- maf per year, mainly from Arizona tributaries, ers within the basin. However, due to the fact is estimated to join the river in the lower that many of the more immediate and contro- basin, making the officially estimated average versial issues are specific to the lower basin, flow approximately 16 maf per year. Using a much of our analysis centers on this region. variety of methods to reconstruct past climatic The lower basin, as defined in this report, con- conditions, some scientists now believe that sists of southern Nevada (the Nevada Division the long-term average runoff of the Colorado of Water Planning’s Colorado River Basin may be substantially below even this level. Hydrographic Region — roughly the area of Numerous tree ring studies from around the Clark and part of Lincoln Counties), southern basin suggest that the long-term average runoff California (the CDWR’s Colorado River and of the river may be as low as 13.5 maf per year South Coast Hydrological Study Areas), the (Stockton and Jacoby 1976; Meko et al. 1995; state of Arizona, and Mexico’s delta and Weatherford and Jacoby 1975; Kneese and Mexicali Valley regions in the states of Baja Bonem 1986). California, Norte and Sonora. Even the higher estimates currently used by the Bureau of Reclamation are insufficient to A. WATER SUPPLY IN THE meet total allocations under the Law of the COLORADO RIVER BASIN River. The 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act set A fundamental problem in the Colorado River a yearly apportionment of 7.5 maf of consump- basin is that the long-term planned use of the tive water use 4 for each the upper and lower river’s water exceeds the reliable available sup- basins.5 At the same time, and later upheld by ply. Because total legal entitlements to the the US Supreme Court in 1963, Arizona was river’s water are greater that the river’s average allocated an additional 1 maf. As part of the annual flow, the river has been deemed “over- 1963 Supreme Court decision resolving apportioned.” The true average annual natural Arizona’s dispute with California, it was deter- flow of the Colorado River is a subject of great mined Arizona’s additional 1 maf was to come debate. One of the principal assumptions at the from allowing Arizona the right to use the time that the 1922 Compact was signed by the waters of its tributaries — this water was users of the upper and lower basins was that deemed supplemental to Arizona’s basic enti-

3 During the 15 year period prior to the 1922 Compact, the Colorado’s annual flow averaged 18.1 maf. However, over the longer period of 1906-1990, the river’s annual flow averaged 15.2 maf at Lee’s Ferry. Tree ring studies suggest that the long-term historic flow may be as low as 13.5 maf. 4 Consumptive use on the river is defined as total diversions minus return flows. 5 The upper basin consists of the states Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The lower basin consists of Nevada, California, and Arizona.

9 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

tlement of 2.8 maf. The 1944 treaty with states’ consumptive use from 1988 through Mexico, which guaranteed that at least 1.5 maf 1995. Due to the upper basin’s current under- be delivered to Mexico annually, puts total utilization, the lower basin’s diversion of more legal entitlements at 17.5 maf. Moreover, this than its apportionment has not yet become amount does not include an estimated 1.5 maf problematic. of evaporation that occurs at reservoirs and along the river on an annual basis. Thus con- B. WATER DEMAND AND USE siderably more water is committed than the IN THE LOWER COLORADO river can reliably deliver. However, since none BASIN of the basin states except for California and Currently, some 23 million people of the lower Mexico have yet utilized their full entitle- basin are at least partially dependent upon the ments, current average annual consumptive water resources of the Colorado River. Almost use of water in the basin (including reservoir 74 percent, or 17 million people, reside in the and mainstem evaporation and phreatophyte greater Los Angeles and San Diego areas — transpiration) plus deliveries to Mexico equals outside of the actual boundaries of the basin, approximately 14.4 maf (CRBC 1996). but supplied by a series of dams and aqueducts While the upper basin currently uses a little from the Colorado system. Growth rates in all more than half of its basic entitlement, the three lower basin states are among the highest lower basin is now facing the problem of in the nation. Officials estimate that by 2020 approaching its legally apportioned limits. there could be more than 38 million people liv- During three out of the last eight years, the ing in the region. Table 2 depicts actual popula- lower basin has exceeded its basic entitlement tions by lower basin subregion for 1990 and of 7.5 maf. Table 1 illustrates the lower basin projected populations for 2020.

Table 1 Lower Colorado River Basin States’ Consumptive Use of Colorado River Water (Thousand acre-feet)

State Entitlement 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995a 8 Yr. Avg.

Arizona 2,800 1,923 2,230 2,260 1,864 1,919 2,246 2,152 2,132 2,091 California 4,400 5,040 5,144 5,219 5,006 4,526 4,835 5,234 4,998 5,000 Nevada 300 129 156 178 180 177 204 228 225 185

Total 7,500 7,092 7,530 7,657 7,050 6,622 7,285 7,614 7,355 7,276

Source: years 1988-92 from GCAPAC 1993; years 1993-95 from USBR 1995 telefax. a Projection

Table 2 Population Projections by Lower Colorado River Subregion Planning Area 1990 2020a Percent Increase Arizona 3,665,000 6,980,000 90 Southern California 16,757,000 26,318,000 57 Southern Nevada 800,000 1,630,000 104 Mexico (using Colorado River water) 1,700,000b 3,240,000 91 Lower Colorado River 22,922,000 38,168,000 67

a Arizona 2020 population estimates based on annual average percentage growth rates between 1990 and 2015. Nevada calculations based on annual average percentage growth rate from 2000 to 2030. Mexico calculations based on Baja California Norte growth rate from 1970-1990. b Estimate is for 1993. Sources: CDWR 1993; CDWR 1994; ADWR 1994; UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research 1994; Reich 1984; CRBSCF 1993.

10 Water “Imbalance” in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Present Supply and Demand

1. Water Use southern California depend on it for only 30 percent of their supply. At the extreme of Not only do each of the lower basin states and dependence, California farming communities Mexico have a different degree of reliance in Coachella and Imperial Valleys rely on the upon the Colorado River, but subregions within river for 95 percent of their annual supply. the states do as well. Southern Nevada, for Table 3 and 4 show 1990 normalized water example, relies on the Colorado for almost two- supply by source and demand by sector for thirds of its supply, while the urban areas of each of the lower basin states and Mexico.

Table 3 1990 Water Supply by Source for Lower Basin States and Mexico (Thousand acre-feet)

Southern Southern Regional Source Arizona California Nevada Mexico Total Local Surface 1,367 260 15 0 1,642 Colorado River 1,954 5,164 347 a 1,640 c 8,965 Other Imported 0 1,730 0 0 1,730 Reuse 119 89 22 0 230 Total Groundwater Use 3,334 1,260 147 b 823 5,704 Sustainable Pumping 2,334 1,163 96 727 4,320 Groundwater Overdraft 1,000 97 51 96 1,384

Region Total 6,774 8,503 531 2,463 18,271 Colorado as Percent of Region’s Supply 29% 61% 65% 61% 49%

a Southern Nevada’s Colorado River number is 1993-1995 average and are the total diversions for the region. Although there is a return flow credit system with wastewater returning to Lake Mead, diversions more accurately represent water supply for urban use. b Based on perennial yields, sustainable pumping in the region is estimated at 80,570 af/yr with overdraft 65,962 af/yr. Due to groundwater artificial recharge programs in Las Vegas Valley Water District (average 13,360 af/yr) and North Las Vegas (1,640 af/yr)(15,000 af/yr total), sustainable pumping increases to 95,570 af/yr, while overdraft is reduced to 50,962 af/yr. c 1952-1992 average annual diversion at Alamo Intake, Morelos Dam. Sources: ADWR 1994, CDWR 1994, Eden and Wallace 1992, Southern Nevada Water Authority telefax undated, IBWC 1992, Comision Nacional Del Agua 1990.

Table 4 1990 Water Demand by Sector for Lower Basin States and Mexico (Thousand acre-feet)

Southern Southern Regional Source Arizona California Nevada Mexico Total

Urban 1,594 3,715 453 184 5,945 Residential 1,105 2,192 275 NA 3,572 Commercial NA a 669 83 NA 752 Industrial 409 297 29 NA 735 Government NA a 223 28 NA 251 Unaccounted/Other 80 334 38 NA 451 Agriculture/Livestock 5,180 4,083 77 2,279 11,619 Other/Environmental NA 705 1 NA 706 Total 6,774 8,503 531 2,463 18,270 b

a Commercial and government included in Arizona’s industrial. b Total supply and total demand difference due to rounding error. Sources: CDWR 1994, Eden and Wallace 1992, Southern Nevada Water Authority telefax undated, Comision Nacional Del Agua 1990.

11 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Arizona a third of the project’s 1.5 maf entitlement (see The state of Arizona currently relies on the Table 5). As CAP diversions increase in the Colorado River for 29 percent of its water sup- future, the Colorado River will represent a larg- ply. Of the state’s 2.8 maf Colorado River con- er percentage of the state’s water supply. The sumptive use entitlement, roughly 70 percent CAP represents the final piece in the water is currently being put to use. The remaining supply puzzle for Arizona water managers as rights to the state’s Colorado River apportion- all local surface and most accessible groundwa- ment lie with the Central Arizona Project ter supplies have been fully appropriated. (CAP), which, in 1992, delivered approximately Providing the infrastructure that allows Arizona to fully utilize the remainder of its Colorado River apportionment, CAP’s recent completion marks the conclusion of a 60-year effort to bring Colorado River water to the cities and farmers of Central Arizona. One of the major justifications for this massive project was to bring water that could substitute for existing agricultural groundwater overdraft (GCAPAC 1993a). The idea was that CAP water would initially be used to ease demand for mined groundwater and then grad- ually bring water to the cities to meet growing urban demands. Due to a series of complica- tions and unforeseen additional costs associated with building CAP, Arizona’s repayment obligation to the federal government rose substantially. While the amount Arizona will actually repay has yet to be determined (and appears will be decided in court), the additional costs have now made CAP water too expensive for most farmers to afford. Due to a provision in the contracts forcing payment even if water is not delivered, numerous irrigation districts have already or are considering filing for bankruptcy under federal law. The issues surrounding the Central Arizona CAP intake at Lake Havasu. CAP water is lifted nearly a Project are relevant to the future management thousand meters in elevation before reaching its terminus south of Tucson. (Photo by J. Morrison) of the Colorado River for several distinct rea-

Table 5 Central Arizona Project Water Use 1988-1992 (Thousand acre-feet)

5 Year TYPE 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Average

Non-Indian Agriculture 325 544 479 272 135 351 Municipal & Industrial 79 109 151 77 104 104 Indian 64 62 115 72 71 77 Indirect Recharge 0 0 0 0 226 45

Total 468 715 745 421 536 577

Source: GCAPAC 1993.

12 Water “Imbalance” in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Present Supply and Demand

sons. Most immediately, how and to what extent CAP water is used will affect the pace at which the lower basin’s total allotment is reached. For many years, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) projections estimated that CAP water would not be fully utilized until the 2040s (ADWR 1994). This under- utilization of Colorado River entitlements has provided a cushion for other lower basin users, particularly southern California, which currently diverts Arizona’s unused apportionment. However, recent developments in Arizona may lead to an increase in Arizona’s use. In March 1996, Arizona’s state legislature approved a bill establishing a groundwater recharge program that will ultimately use up to 25 percent of CAP’s Colorado River entitlement for the next twenty years. Specifically, the goal for the newly created Arizona Water Bank Authority (AWBA) is to recharge up to 400,000 af/year from 1996 to 2016 in an effort to provide protection against future droughts and shortages, meet the objectives of the 1980 Groundwater Code, which aims to eliminate groundwater overdraft in the state, and free up water to assist in resolving Gene Camp pump lift of MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct. In total, imported water accounts for almost 65 percent of Indian water rights issues (ADWR 1996). The Southern California’s urban water supply. (Photo by J. Morrison) ABWA has set a short-term goal of recharging water for urban Californians. When dry periods 100,000 acre-feet in 1997 via existing ground- have affected water supplies imported from water replenishment facilities (J. Holway, northern parts of the state, southern California Arizona Department of Water Resources, per- has found the Colorado a stable source to meet sonal communication, 1996). While the AWBA its needs. The 60 million acre-foot storage will surely speed up Arizona’s quest to utilize capacity on the Colorado mainstem helps its full Colorado River basic entitlement, as smooth out climatic variations, making it one currently structured, other lower basin states of the more reliable sources of supply in the stand to benefit as well. Water purveyors in Southwest. California and Nevada will also be allowed to Urban California water purveyors are con- purchase and store water in Arizona. Similar to cerned, however, that their current level of use a forbearance agreement, accumulated credits of the river’s water is in jeopardy. In terms of for water stored in central Arizona will be able consumptive use, California currently accounts to be redeemed by those purveyors in the for as much as one-third of the river’s annual future by diverting directly from the river in average flow but its apportionment is only 27 proportion to water stored in the bank (ADWR percent. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1996). 1928 set California’s basic consumptive use California entitlement at 4.4 maf a year, but over the last The Colorado River provides almost two-thirds decade, the state’s average use has been over 5 of southern California’s water supply. The maf per year. In 1931, California divided its river provides at least partial supply to almost Colorado River basic entitlement among the 17 million southern Californians. The Colorado then seven southern California interests. represents 30 percent of urban supplies and is Metropolitan Water District of Southern one of the more dependable sources of surface California (MWD), the wholesale water purvey-

13 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

or for the region’s urban areas, was assigned a come from groundwater supply or a reallocation more junior priority water right than those of of surface water rights (NDCNR 1992). Lacking irrigation districts of the region, being allocated dependable surface supplies, development in the last 550,000 of California’s 4.4 maf appor- the southern portion of the state has historically tionment. MWD currently has temporary con- been supported with the pumping of groundwa- tracts with the Bureau for 1.212 maf made pos- ter. Faced with severe groundwater overdraft sible by the fact that other lower Colorado conditions by the 1960s, Nevada looked towards River basin states have not historically used the Colorado to augment its water supplies. In their full entitlements. But as demands 1971, the completion of the Southern Nevada increase in the lower basin and as California is Water System (SNWS), a water distribution net- forced to curtail its use to 4.4 maf, MWD’s use work, marked the first substantial diversions of of surplus flows will be the most significantly Colorado River water in the state. Southern affected. Nevada now relies on the Colorado for roughly Farmers in southern California’s Imperial two thirds of its water supply. Valley were among the first settlers to divert Historically, the “main player” in the distrib- the river’s water for irrigation in the lower ution of Colorado water in Southern Nevada basin. Due to their active presence during has been the Las Vegas Valley Water District early negotiations that divided the waters of (LVVWD). The agency is responsible, through a the river, California irrigation districts enjoy a 1967 contract with the Colorado River secure right to almost 25 percent of the entire Commission of Nevada, for maintaining and Colorado’s annual average flow, irrigating over operating the SNWS. This state and federally 400,000 hectares of farmland. In recent years, funded water project is currently responsible as a result of pressure from the State Water for diverting more than 85 percent of southern Resources Control Board to implement more Nevada’s share of Colorado River water. Of the efficient water use practices, irrigation districts water delivered by the system, LVVWD con- in the region have entered into water conserva- sumes roughly 80 percent. In 1991, the tion-and-exchange programs with neighboring Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) was urban water purveyors. established to create a unified voice in regional In addition to conservation projects with the water issues concerning the Colorado River. MWD, negotiations for a long-term water trans- The SNWA consists of five formerly indepen- fer are currently being held between the San dent water purveyors in southern Nevada, and Diego Water Authority (SDWA) and Imperial was created in response to the need for Irrigation District (IID). Four of the five alter- increased Colorado River supplies. natives for the proposed agreement would Mexicali Valley, Mexico involve the construction of a transfer facility to carry up to 500,000 acre-feet per year of water Communities of the Mexicali Valley region are over various routes from the Colorado River to heavily reliant upon the waters of the Colorado the city of San Diego. Estimated costs for the River. The river’s water directly accounts for 60 delivery system range between $1.9 and $3.5 percent of the region’s annual average supply, billion depending on the route chosen (SDWA with the remainder coming from groundwater 1996). The fifth alternative would involve pumping. A considerable portion of the “wheeling” the water through the MWD-operat- groundwater supply, however, originates as ed Colorado River Aqueduct (SDWA 1996). Colorado River water which has been diverted and applied for irrigation. Water that does not Nevada evaporate or transpire when applied by farm- Total annual average precipitation of approxi- ers percolates into the aquifers. As a result, the mately 230 mm per year makes Nevada the Colorado represents an even higher portion of most arid state in the nation (Geraghty et al. total supply for the region. 1973). Water supply has long been a limiting Pursuant to the 1944 treaty with the United factor in the state’s development. Surface water States, Mexico is guaranteed the delivery of at resources of Nevada are nearly fully appropriat- least 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River ed, meaning further development will have to water on an annual basis. In all but extremely

14 Water “Imbalance” in the Lower Colorado River Basin: Present Supply and Demand

Figure 2 Colorado FigureRiver 2. ColoradoDeliveries River Deliveries and and Water Water Use Use in Mexico in Mexico 1951-1994 1951–1994

16,000,000

14,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

cre-Feet

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1

5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

1951 1953 1955 1 1959 1 1963 1965 1 1969 1 1973 1975 1 1979 1 1983 1985 1 1989 19 1993

Urban + Irrigation Mexico Delivery high flow years when flood spills are released, real problem and that it will alter the hydrolog- 100 percent of the water reaching the northern ic cycle in a variety of ways, there is little cer- international border is diverted for human pur- tainty about the form these changes will take, poses at the Alamo intake at Morelos Dam. or when they will be unambiguously detected. Figure 2 depicts Colorado River deliveries and In spite of these uncertainties, the potential diversions to Mexicali Valley from 1951 to 1994. for severe impacts was noted by researchers in the mid-1980s and by international agencies by C. CLIMATIC CHANGE AND 1990: FUTURE WATER SUPPLY AND “The design of many costly structures to store and convey water, from large DEMAND IN THE BASIN dams to small drainage facilities, is The problem of global climatic change result- based on analyses of past records of ing from the buildup of “greenhouse” gases in climatic and hydrologic parameters. the atmosphere greatly complicates the prob- Some of these structures are designed lem of hydrologic planning and management. to last 50 to 100 years or even longer. All traditional hydrologic tools for evaluating Records of past climate and hydrological the frequency and magnitude of extreme conditions may no longer be a reliable events or for allocating available water supplies guide to the future. The design and assume that future conditions will look like management of both structural and past conditions. Global climatic changes, how- non-structural water resource systems ever, have the potential to significantly alter should allow for the possible effects of both water supply and demand in the Colorado climate change.” [italics added] River Basin, leading to new and unanticipated (Proceedings of the Second World climatic regimes. While there is a broad scien- Climate Conference, Jager and tific consensus that global climatic change is a Ferguson 1991.)

15 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

A separate study (Waggoner 1990) published electricity generation, reservoir levels, and in 1990 focused on the implications of global salinity in the river were all extremely sensi- climate changes for the water resources of the tive to both the kinds of changes that are United States. This study concluded: expected to occur and to the policy options “Among the climatic changes that chosen to respond to them. For the purposes governments and other public bodies of this paper, we make no assumptions about are likely to encounter are rising how overall water supply and demand in the temperatures, increasing evapotran- Colorado Basin will be affected by climatic spiration, earlier melting of snow- changes. Until better information is available packs, new seasonal cycles of runoff, about the nature, direction, and severity of altered frequency of extreme events, possible changes, important policy options are and rising sea level...Governments to improve the flexibility of the total system at all levels should reevaluate legal, and reduce vulnerability to climatic variations. technical, and economic procedures for But this issue remains one of the greatest managing water resources in the light of unsolved concerns in the region. climate changes that are highly likely.” [italics in original]

Just last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new study on the impacts of climate change (IPCC 1995). Among the most severe impacts they anticipate are effects on the hydrologic cycle and on human systems dependent on water. Reductions in snow depth and extent would affect the seasonal distribution of river flow and water supply for hydroelectric generation and agriculture. Inland aquatic ecosystems will suffer altered water temperatures, flow regimes, and water levels. Increases in flow variability, particularly the frequency and duration of large floods and droughts, would tend to reduce water quality, biological productivity, and habitat in streams. In regions like the Colorado Basin, they note that relatively small changes in temperature and precipitation, together with non-linear effects on evapotranspiration and soil moisture, can result in relatively large changes in runoff. Equally important as the geophysical impacts that may occur are the initial conditions of the water supply system and “the ability of water resource managers to respond not only to climate change but also to population growth and changes in demands, technology, and economic, social, and legislative conditions (IPCC 1995).” Recent major assessments of the impacts of global climatic changes specifically in the Colorado River Basin (Nash and Gleick 1991, 1993) concluded that water supply, hydro-

16 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

IV. Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

hile the unsustainable nature of name Rio Colorado — “river colored red” — no current water planning and man- longer suits the modern-day river, however. agement lies at the heart of the Dams have trapped virtually all of the river’s W basin’s problems, symptoms of sediment load, leaving the river clear and the failing approach are visible throughout the green. With sediment largely trapped behind basin. Prominent symptoms include decimated Glen Canyon Dam, the lower half of the river aquatic ecosystems, irreparably damaged is now mainly an erosive force: little sediment groundwater aquifers, and heavily polluted is deposited to replace what the river carries agricultural and urban runoff. A comprehen- away. This has caused sandbars and beaches — sive management plan aimed at achieving sus- key habitat for wildlife — to diminish or disap- tainable patterns of water use in the lower pear. While perhaps an aesthetic plus, this Colorado must, at a minimum, address three clear water, according to Steven Carothers and key challenges: revamp river management so Bryan Brown, authors of The Colorado River as to protect endangered fish species and criti- Through Grand Canyon, “is the single most sig- cal ecosystem values, free up water for restora- nificant factor in the development of a radical- tion of the Colorado River delta, and eliminate ly changed river and aquatic ecosystem” long-term groundwater overdraft throughout (Carothers and Brown 1991). To try to correct the basin. Complicating the task of meeting some of these problems, a test “flood” involv- these challenges is the need to maintain a ing a “spring spike” release of water from Glen vibrant agricultural sector, quench the thirst of Canyon Dam, was conducted in March 1996. growing urban areas, and fulfill the obligation Secretary of the Interior Babbitt declared this of the federal government to settle unquanti- test a success, with new beaches and fish habi- fied, but potentially significant, Native tat created downstream. It remains to be seen American water entitlements. whether this kind of remediation will have long-term positive effects. A. STRESSED AQUATIC Storage infrastructure built along the ECOSYSTEMS AND THE NEED Colorado has also evened out and cooled the TO REVAMP RIVER river’s temperature. Before construction of MANAGEMENT Glen Canyon Dam, for example, the water temperature through the Grand Canyon varied Over the past 65 years, the Colorado River sys- with the seasons and ranged from about 0 to 5 tem has been stressed and transformed by degrees C (32-40 water “development.” Controlled by some 20 degrees F) in winter to dams, the Colorado River ranks among the 24 to 30 degrees C (75- most heavily plumbed water systems in the 85 degrees F) in sum- world. Operation of the dams turns the river mer. Today, water on and off like a faucet, and large-scale diver- released from Lake sions deplete the river’s flow. The result is a Powell comes from a water environment dramatically different from depth of about 60 pre-development conditions — including sedi- meters (200 feet) and ment balance, water temperature and flow, fish is fairly uniform in species composition, and riparian habitat and temperature at about 9 wildlife. degress C (48 degrees The river was given its current name by F). The steady temper- 1992 federal legislation protecting the Grand Canyon has led to Friar Francisco Garcés, who looked over the ature favors only a few changes in river management. One example of this was a test rim of the Grand Canyon in 1776 and noted flood release from Glen Canyon Dam in Spring 1996 that was species, but those conducted in an effort to recover aquatic habitat in the canyon. the muddy red color of the river below. The

17 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

species are abundant due to a surplus of food bring the total number in the Colorado basin to supplies. With the disappearance of sediment, about 80 (Minckley 1991). Many introduced the sun’s energy no longer reflects off the species both preyed upon and competed with water surface but rather penetrates the river to the natives, and combined with the physical considerable depth. This has promoted the changes brought about by Glen Canyon and growth of algae, the base of the aquatic food other dams, have drastically reduced native chain, and greatly increased the river’s biologi- species populations. cal productivity. Thus, biomass production on A fourth major change in the river system, the river is high, but species diversity is low although not entirely negative, has been the (Carothers and Brown 1991). alteration of riparian vegetation, insects, and A third major change is in the composition wildlife. Prior to construction of Glen Canyon of fish species. The Colorado boasts one of the Dam, the river deposited nutrients and sedi- most unique collections of fish fauna in North ment in the riparian zone, which provided an America, with as many as three quarters of its excellent substrate for vegetation. However, roughly 32 freshwater species recognized as the high flood flows of the uncontrolled river endemic (Minckley 1991). Some of its species regularly scoured this vegetation from the river have persisted for more than 20 million years. banks and riparian zone. Once the flooding was Relative isolation and special river basin condi- controlled and the scouring effect reduced, tions allowed this unique assemblage to devel- plants took root and grew on the river banks, op. The native fish tend to have bodily charac- which provided more food and habitat and was teristics that suggest evolutionary adaptation to a boon to insects and wildlife (Carothers and a severe habitat — including, for example, large Brown 1991). Plants and wildlife also benefited and streamlined bodies, expansive fins, and from a more constant water supply year-round thick, leathery skin (Minckley 1991). (Johnson 1991). As Johnson (1991) of the Catfish and carp were introduced into the University of Arizona notes, “The Colorado Colorado River drainage in the late 1800s, and River in Grand Canyon is the only major river- by 1963 were the most common fishes in the ine ecosystem in the lowland Southwest where river (Carothers and Brown 1991). Rainbow there has been an appreciable increase rather trout replaced carp as the dominant species in than a decrease in riparian vegetation and asso- the late 1970s, after Glen Canyon Dam created ciated animal populations during the 1900s.” river conditions ideal for its expansion. Today, The number of bird species, for example, the Lee’s Ferry trout fishery is one of the best has risen sharply. The first Grand Canyon bird in the country. In one of the most outrageous species checklist, published in 1937, showed stream “management” programs ever imple- 180 species. By 1978, the number of bird mented, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species known to exist in the Grand Canyon sponsored an attempt in 1962 to eradicate (by region had climbed to 284. By 1987, the num- poisoning) all the native fishes in 500 miles of ber had grown to 303 species, of which 83% the Green River and its tributaries with the had been recorded in the Colorado River corri- aim of cleaning the river of “trash” fish so that dor. While the presence of more observers has introduced rainbow trout could thrive played a role in this increase, there has also (Carothers and Brown 1991). been an increase due to changes in habitat. Many native fish species have not adapted Studies suggest that many of the newly seen well to cold, clear water and have fared poorly species prefer to nest in non-native tamarisk under the post-development conditions. Since bushes rather than native vegetation (Johnson these species have been found in a variety of 1991). Among the newcomer bird species is the different habitat types in the Colorado system, threatened Bald Eagle, which was attracted by however, dams may have played a lesser role the abundant trout that it could easily see in in their decline than the introduction of non- the clear waters of the post-Glen Canyon Dam native species to the river system. Some 50 fish river (Carothers and Brown 1991). The Grand species have been introduced throughout this Canyon is also believed to support the highest century, either purposefully or accidentally, to concentration of breeding Peregrine Falcons in

18 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

the lower 48 states. The peregrines like to feed humpback chub were Without further action, it is almost on the abundant birds they catch over the first listed as endan- certain that a number of fish species riparian zone and the river itself (Johnson gered under the U.S. in the Colorado River system will 1991). In addition to the peregrines, the Endangered Species become extinct. California condor, Brown pelican, Yuma clap- Act in 1967; bonytail per rail, and Southwestern willow flycatcher was listed in 1980; and are listed as endangered (USFWS 1995a). the razorback sucker was listed in 1992 In contrast to the changes in fish popula- (Wigington and Pontius 1995). Speckled dace, tions, it appears that no native riparian plants flannelmouth sucker, and bluehead sucker are have been extinguished in the Grand Canyon still fairly common (Minckley 1991). Table 6 region by post-dam conditions or the introduc- depicts native and introduced species in the tion of non-native species. Both indigenous and Grand Canyon stretch of Colorado River. exotic vegetation have proliferated in the The “critical habitat” for an endangered Canyon’s riparian zone since 1963, but exotics species is supposed to be designated within still appear to be a relatively minor component two years of that species’ listing under the overall. There are, however, three plant species ESA, but the final designation of critical habitat in the greater lower basin that are endangered for the four endangered Colorado River big fish — the Arizona cliffrose, Brady pincushion cac- species was not published until March 1994. tus, and Sentry milk vetch (USFWS 1995a). The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated There is concern that further habitat distur- 3,186 kilometers of the Colorado River and bance could weaken the native species and tributaries as critical habitat for their survival allow non-natives — particularly tamarisk, (MacDonnell and Driver 1995), but the mean- camelthorn, and Russian olive — to invade ing of this designation remains vague. The more aggressively (Johnson 1991). FWS issued no specific prescriptions of flow 1. Current Efforts to Prevent regimes or other parameters. (This is not unusual. Of the 41 critical habitat designations Species Extinction in the Lower for aquatic species on record as of 1994, just Colorado River System one prescribed a specific instream flow, for Most experts agree that without further example.) The recovery plan for the humpback action, it is almost certain that a number of and bonytail chub were last revised in 1990, fish species in the Colorado River system will and that for the Colorado squawfish in 1991; become extinct. As a result of U.S. Endangered no recovery plan has yet been developed for Species Act (ESA) listings, steps are now being the razorback sucker. As with the critical habi- taken to try to increase stressed populations tat designation, the recovery plans, according and to prevent their extinction. Whether these to Robert Wigington and Dale Pontius (1995) actions will succeed, however, and whether “do not offer specific prescriptions on how they are the most appropriate ones to take, the habitat must be protected, restored or remain open questions. Appendix A provides a managed.” summary of federally-listed endangered and Two important factors will affect future river threatened species, proposed and candidate management decisions — sections 7(a)(1) and species, and species “at risk” in the Lower 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The first Colorado Ecoregion. of these states that all federal agencies have an Four of the native “big river fish” of the “affirmative duty” to use their authorities to Colorado River are now close to extinction — help conserve a listed species — even when the humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado the agency is not actively reviewing a permit. squawfish, and razorback sucker. Of these, only Thus, the Bureau of Reclamation may have a the humpback chub has a population able to responsibility to try to conserve listed endan- reproduce in the lower basin. The Colorado gered species through the flexibility it has in squawfish appears extirpated in the lower operating federal dams along the Colorado and Colorado, while the bonytail and razorback its tributaries. Section 7(a)(2) says that all fed- sucker are represented by only a few older fish eral agencies must consult with FWS about in the wild. The Colorado squawfish and

19 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Table 6 Fishes of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, and Their Status

Native or Fish Family Introduced Status of Native Species

Humpback chub minnow N threatened with extinction; listed as endangered under ESA in 1967; a reproducing population exists in the Little Colorado River Bonytail chub minnow N threatened with extinction; listed as endangered under ESA in 1980; no natural reproduction; only a small number of older fish remain Roundtail chub minnow N classified as a “species at risk” of being listed as endangered under ESA Colorado squawfish minnow N appears extirpated in lower Colorado; listed under ESA in 1967 Speckled dace minnow N classified as a “species at risk” of being listed as endangered under ESA Common carp minnow I Red shiner minnow I Golden shiner minnow I Fathead minnow minnow I Redside shiner minnow I Flannelmouth sucker sucker N classified as a “species at risk” of being listed as endangered under ESA Bluehead sucker sucker N classified as a “species at risk” of being listed as endangered under ESA Razorback sucker sucker N threatened with extinction; listed as endangered under ESA in 1992; no reproducing population; only a small number of older fish remain Threadfin shad shad I Apache trout salmon/trout I Cutthroat trout salmon/trout I Silver salmon salmon/trout I Rainbow trout salmon/trout I Brown trout salmon/trout I Brook trout salmon/trout I Black bullhead bullhead catfish I Channel catfish bullhead catfish I Plains killifish killifish I Mosquitofish livebearer I Green sunfish sunfish I Bluegill sunfish I Largemouth bass sunfish I Striped bass temperate bass I

Sources: Minckley 1991; Wigington and Pontius 1995.

20 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

whether any of their proposed actions will like- ed as Recommended Plans of Action (RPAs) by ly jeopardize the survival of a listed species or the FWS when it comes time for the agency to harm its designated critical habitat. If the FWS specify actions that must be taken to avoid a finds that the proposed action will likely jeop- jeopardy opinion. ardize the species, it must suggest alternative It is too early in the MSCP process to judge ways for the federal agency to proceed without its likelihood of success. Lingering technical causing harm. Clearly, this section has implica- problems include the lack of specific knowl- tions for federal water and power projects in edge about instream flow requirements and the Colorado system since operation of these the degree of relief from predation needed for projects may further jeopardize a number of big river fish species recovery and protection. listed species (Wigington and Pontius 1995). In the upper basin, even five years of research In September 1994, FWS informed the did not produce flow prescriptions that could Bureau of Reclamation that the Bureau’s opera- be defended adequately against attacks by tion of water projects in the lower basin, either water developers and the states (Wigington and individually or cumulatively, would lead to for- Pontius 1995). And if such flow requirements mal consultations under Section 7 of the ESA if should be established for the lower basin, it listed species or their critical habitat are found remains uncertain whether and how they to be adversely affected by project operations. would be met, since augmenting flows would With the likelihood that FWS would issue a likely require cutbacks in current water use “jeopardy” finding, water users and the lower (Smith and Vaughan 1994). basin states elected to begin developing a Political problems center upon environmen- Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under tal groups’ concerns that interim conservation Section 10 of the ESA as an alternative for list- measures being considered by the MSCP ed species recovery in the lower basin. Steering Committee appear to focus more Although the four big river fish species were on augmenting hatcheries and adding more the main motivation for initiating this HCP, “grow out” facilities for the fish off-river, rather over 100 other species have since been includ- than on changes in river management or ed in the conservation planning process. The efforts to increase river flows. In order to program’s study area includes the Colorado appease fears that the MSCP was slanted more mainstem, reservoirs, and the 100-year flood- toward water development than species recov- plain (but not tributaries) from Glen Canyon ery, a Memorandum of Clarification was Dam south to the border with Mexico. signed by lower basin states that addressed Efforts to recover endangered species were the environmental groups’ concerns with the formalized in August 1995, when the three original MOA. Also as a result of the negotia- lower basin states signed a Memorandum of tions, environmental and tribal representatives Agreement (MOA) to develop a species conser- were added to the MSCP Steering Committee, vation plan over a three-year period. This but the threat of litigation challenging the adequacy of the modified MSCP under the ESA undertaking, now referred to as the Lower remains. Colorado River Multi Species Conservation Program (MSCP), was originally intended to postpone section 7 consultations between the FWS and the Bureau and more ideally to obvi- B. RESTORATION OF THE ate the need for a “jeopardy” finding by the COLORADO RIVER DELTA FWS. However, due to the fact that section 7 The second challenge that must be dealt with federal consultations were resumed between in a transition toward sustainable river man- the FWS and Bureau of Reclamation in early- agement is the need to find increased water spring 1996 as a result of pressures from envi- supplies for restoration of the Colorado River ronmental groups, the goal of the MSCP has delta. Only fairly recently has much attention changed. The MSCP is now working primarily been focused on the delta and the extensive to identify and develop conservation measures changes it has undergone with the damming that the lower basin states hope will be adopt- and diverting of the river. The Colorado delta

21 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

is the result of one of the greatest accumula- mouth at the Sea of Cortez. This flow not only tions of silt in the world. In its natural state, replenished the delta with silt, but delivered the river carried a huge load of sediment nutrients that helped support fish and other life toward the sea: Between 45 million and 455 in the sea. Although much of the delta has been million metric tons of silt per year was trans- converted into irrigated farmland, some 250,000 ported through the Grand Canyon between hectares of delta land remain at its southern 1922 and 1935 (Minckley 1991). The upper end end (Glenn et al. 1992). The delta and upper of this range is extraordinarily high. For com- Gulf comprise the largest and most critical parison, the Mississippi, with an average annu- desert wetland in the American Southwest, as al flow more than twenty-five times greater well as one of the world’s most diverse and pro- than the Colorado’s, is estimated to transport ductive sea ecosystems. an average of 200 million tons of sediment per Dams and upstream diversions have dramat- year (Milliman and Meade 1983). Historically, ically reduced the natural flow of water, silt, about 20-30 percent of the Colorado’s silt load and nutrients to the delta. Except for unusually was deposited in the river’s floodplain and high flood years, virtually the entire flow of along its channel, the rest being transported to the river is now captured and used — and has the river mouth, where it built up the delta. been since about the early sixties, when Glen Prior to major dam construction, the delta Canyon Dam was completed.6 (See Figure 3) was lush with vegetation. It supported some This loss of inflow has desiccated the delta — 200-400 plant species, along with numerous turning the area below the farmland into a birds, fish, and mammals (Glenn et al. 1992). patchwork of salt and mud flats. Wetlands have A substantial amount of flow reached the river’s shrunk, and now exist mainly where agricul-

6 Flow readings at El Meritimo, the southernmost measuring station on the Colorado, were discontinued in 1968 because there was nothing to measure (Wilson 1994).

Figure 3 Flow of ColoradoFlow ofRiver Colorado Below River Below All All MajorMajor Dams Dams and Diversions and 1905-1992 Diversions 1905–1992

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000 1000 Acre-feet

10,000

5,000

8 8 2

962 96 99

1905 1908 1911 1914 1917 1920 1923 1926 1929 1932 1935 193 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1 1965 1 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1

22 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

tural drainage water is discharged or where of fishers and flood-recession farmers, are suf- groundwater upwells onto the mud flats fering badly. Traditionally, these “people of the (Glenn et al. 1992). river” ate fish three times a day, but now they The reduction in freshwater flow has also are lucky to have fish once a week. Since the cut the influx of nutrients to the sea and water is too salty to grow certain traditional reduced critical habitat for nursery grounds. crops like melons and squash, their diets have Catches from the upper Gulf shrimp fishery become less healthy. There is little work for the have dropped off steeply, and other fisheries younger tribal members, and the number of are in decline as well. While there is little hard families in the settlement has declined (Carrier data to correlate these declines with the drop 1991). Anita Williams, a Mexicali-based expert in river flows, local fishermen and most biolo- on the Cocopa, wrote in 1983: “By the end of gists working on these issues believe that the the twentieth century, lack of nutrient-rich water inflow is a major the [Cocopa] may no cause. Indeed, the “golden days” to contempo- longer be river people rary fishermen in the upper Gulf apparently at all” (Williams 1983). refer to the mid-1980s, after the high flood year That prediction is of 1983, when huge snowmelts in the upper showing signs of Colorado basin caused the river to flow at rates coming true. not seen for several decades. According to Several communi- Alejandro Robles, executive director of ties of the upper Gulf Conservation International’s Mexico program, — including El Golfo many upper gulf fishermen believe that the de Santa Clara, San Felipe, and Puerto rare flood flows of January 1993 temporarily Peñasco — were ini- brought back substantial numbers of fish tially founded as fish- species that had become scarce in the region ing camps, and fish- (A. Robles, Conservation International, ing remains the basis personal communication, 1995). of their economic and Such rare events, however, will not halt or cultural viability. reverse the long-term decline of the ecosystem According to — or the economic, social, cultural, and ecolog- researchers Marcela ical toll that is following on its heels. A large Vásquez León, number of species that depend on the lower Thomas McGuire, and Colorado-upper Gulf ecosystem are now threat- Hernan Aubert, ship- ened or endangered, including the green sea yards are closed, turtle, the Yuma Clapper Rail, and the desert packing plants are The livelihood of the Cocopa Indians has been threatened by a pupfish. Much attention has focused on the lack of water reaching the Colorado River delta region. operating well below (Photos courtesy of Deborah Fryer) vaquita, the world’s smallest porpoise and most capacity, local busi- endangered sea mammal, whose population in nesses are suffering, and households are strug- the upper Gulf is believed to number just a few gling to survive. “The most direct way to revive hundred. Also of special concern is the totoaba, the economies of the upper Gulf,” they write, a steel-blue fish that grows up to more than 2 “is to revitalize the upper Gulf itself...”(León et meters in length and 140 kilograms in weight, al. 1993). And most believe this will require that once supported a popular sports and com- more freshwater inflows from the Colorado mercial fishery. The fish used to breed in large River itself. numbers in the formerly brackish, shallow waters of the Colorado estuary while spending 1. Wetlands Protection and most of its adult life in the deeper waters of Restoration: A Clear Priority the upper Gulf. Between habitat degradation Although it would take the removal of the and overfishing, the totoaba is now on the entire Colorado River system of reservoirs to verge of extinction (Wilson 1994). restore the delta to anything like what it was 70 The Cocopa Indians, a 2,000-year old culture years ago, valuable wetland systems remain in

23 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

the delta and are an urgent priority for protec- delta wetlands would benefit a number of tion. Modified management of flood waters and endangered species, waterfowl and other birds, agricultural drainage water in the delta region and, potentially, the Cocopa. Figure 4 shows could restore a substantial area of critical wet- the remaining wetland areas of the Colorado land habitat. Actions to protect and restore River delta.

Figure 4 Map of the Colorado River Delta Region

SALTON SEA COACHELLA CANAL

Colorado River

ARIZONA

New River DESALTING PLANT IMPERIAL CALIFORNIA DAM ALL-AMERICAN CANAL LAGUNA DAM

Mexicali Yuma MORELOS DAM LAGUNA SALADASIERRA DE LOS COCOPAH CANAL CENTRAL Welton-Mohawk Drain San Luis

BAJA Hardy River CALIFORNIA SONORA

1 3 CIENEGA DE SANTA CLARA 2

ISLA GORE ISLA MONTAGUE El Golfo de 50 km GULF OF Santa Clara CALIFORNIA

1 = Rio Hardy wetlands, 2 = Cienega de Santa Clara, 3 = El Doctor wetlands

Source: Glenn et al. 1996.

24 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

• The Cienega de Santa Clara, in the eastern gered Yuma clapper rails and desert pup- portion of the delta, covered only about fish (Glenn et al. 1996). Also of note is the 200 hectares in the early seventies, when it presence of Palmer’s grass, one of only two was fed solely by artesian springs and endemic grasses in the Sonoran Desert. some agricultural drainage water from This grass formerly covered large areas of Mexico’s San Luis Irrigation District. Then, the lower delta and produced a grain har- in 1977, the United States constructed a vested by the Cocopa. Because Palmer’s large canal, known as the M.O.D.E. (Main grass requires only 24 hours of freshwater Outlet Drain Extension) drain, extending to germinate and can survive in salty water from the Wellton-Mohawk irrigation district thereafter, it could prove an important to the Cienega de Santa Clara. Previously future grain crop in dry, water-short the Wellton-Mohawk drainage had emptied regions of the world. into the lower Colorado and contributed Should the Yuma desalting plant substantial quantities of salt and chemicals come on line and the Wellton-Mohawk to the river just before it crossed into drainage be channeled to it rather than Mexico. The 80-kilometer, concrete-lined to the Cienega, these vital wetlands could canal was constructed to rechannel the largely disappear. The Cienega could be drainage until the Yuma desalting plant protected by a commitment from the came on line as a permanent solution to U.S. Department of Interior to continue to the problem of the quality of the river provide Wellton-Mohawk drain water to it. water entering Mexico. • The Rio Hardy wetlands, on the western side of the delta, had historically been described as a gallery forest of cottonwoods and willow transitioning at its southern end into a plain influenced by tides from the upper Gulf. This is the area that American naturalist Aldo Leopold visited in the early 1920s and described as a “milk- and-honey-wilderness,” and the area of the “green lagoons,” abundant with wildlife (Leopold 1949). It was also one of the areas where the Cocopa lived and thrived. Although highly saline, Wellton-Mohawk drainage is now the From about 1947 through 1983, the Rio largest source of water supply for the Cienega de Santa Clara. (Courtesy of Dale Pontius) Hardy wetlands were sustained by the backing up of freshwater behind a natural Because start-up of the Yuma plant dam in the Colorado River channel (the has been delayed, this agricultural Hardy joins the Colorado before it enters drainage water has continued to flow into the Gulf). Despite the fact that no water the Cienega. Based on satellite images, from the Colorado entered this area from the area of brackish wetland has grown to 1963 to 1980, the wetlands covered some some 20,250 hectares (50,000 acres) and, 18,200 hectares (45,000 acres). The princi- ironically, is now the largest wetland bird pal sources of the freshwater were dis- habitat remaining in the delta. Among the charges from geothermal wells near the species documented there are the endan- source of the Hardy as well as agricultural gered Yuma clapper rail, Virginia rails, drainage. After the major flooding on the least bitterns, American coots, dowitchers, Colorado in 1983, the Rio Hardy wetlands white-faced ibis, green-backed heron, and grew to some 66,400 hectares (164,000 black-crowned night heron (Glenn et al. acres). Since then, the wetlands have 1992). The Cienega may be home to the shrunk considerably, in part because the largest remaining populations of endan- 1983 floods destroyed the natural dam that

25 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

had backed up the freshwater inflows. C. ELIMINATION OF Their area has dropped as low as about LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres), although they expand considerably during flood periods, OVERDRAFT IN THE LOWER as during the 1992 floods on the Gila River COLORADO BASIN (Glenn et al. 1996). A third major challenge to sustainable manage- Ducks Unlimited has recommended ment of the lower Colorado River basin is the that a structure be put in place to re-create elimination of long-term groundwater over- the effect of the natural earthen dam that draft. Freshwater is a renewable resource — it had backed water into the lower Rio Hardy can be used in a manner that maintains its wetland and helped sustain it. They esti- long-term availability. Groundwater stocks are mate the cost at about $250,000, and renewable on timelines that depend upon the believe this would restore much of the rate of inflow of water, the rate of withdrawals former wetland area below the confluence of water, and the geophysical characteristics of of the Hardy and Colorado. No decision the aquifer. In some instances, overpumping of or action has been taken on this as yet groundwater — the extraction of groundwater (Glenn et al. 1996; E. Glenn, at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural Environmental Research Laboratory, recharge — can continue for some time with personal communication, 1996). no adverse consequences if the aquifer is permitted to be recharged during wet periods. • The El Doctor wetlands, named for a small Thus a short-term nonrenewable use may still settlement on the eastern side of the delta, be compatible with long-term renewability. are supported by artesian springs that bub- There are, however, ways in which renewable ble up onto the salt and mud flats. Because freshwater resources can be made nonrenew- the water that sustains them is of much able, including mismanagement of watersheds, lower salinity, these “pozos” have greater overpumping of groundwater, land subsidence, plant species diversity than either the Rio and aquifer contamination. Water policy Hardy or Cienega wetlands. They cover an should explicitly protect against these irre- area of about 500 to 700 hectares (1,250 to versible activities. 1,750 acres), and have been fairly stable Not only is groundwater mining fundamen- over the last two decades, although they tally unsustainable, but there are numerous are subject to overgrazing by local cattle practical reasons why water managers of the (Glenn et al. 1996). basin should act swiftly to eliminate the prac- In sum, the remaining wetlands of the tice. One problem with mining groundwater is Colorado River delta are high priority conserva- that it gives the illusion of a healthy supply- tion sites. They not only support rare and demand equilibrium. However, as water quali- endangered species, ty degrades at lower levels and becomes less but serve as vital pop- economically attractive due to high energy ulation reservoirs for a costs, water users who currently rely on that wide variety of water will be forced to find new sources of sup- species. Today, the ply. The potential turmoil this can cause in the wetlands are threat- lower Colorado River basin is considerable. ened primarily by Another problem is that overdrafting can potential water man- lead to permanent losses in groundwater stor- agement decisions age capacity — one of the potentially cheapest that may not treat ways of storing water for dry years. them as important Groundwater depletion that leads to irre- natural assets. versible aquifer compaction limits future storage options, limiting the flexibility of conjunc- In an effort to protect remaining aquatic habitat, Mexico tive use programs. An illustration of this in created the Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve in 1993. (Courtesy of Dale Pontius) California is a USGS (1992) study estimating

26 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

that over 16 million acre-feet of groundwater long-standing problem with groundwater over- storage capacity has been permanently lost draft. As a result of the GWMA, three types of due to aquifer compaction in the Central area designations with varying levels of water Valley. The number of dams — and their eco- management were created in response to the nomic and environmental cost — that would varying groundwater conditions of the state. have to be built in the Sierra Nevada to provide Most regions of the state fall into the lowest that same capacity is an open question. tier of management and are minimally regulat- Lastly, the negative economic and human ed. They include most of the central highlands, health consequences of overdraft need to be the Little Colorado River Plateau, and north- considered. For example, land subsidence and western and southeastern Arizona. earth fissures caused by groundwater depletion The second tier of management applies to in southern Arizona have damaged a variety of the Irrigation Non-expansion Areas (INAs). engineering structures including buildings, There are currently three INAs in Arizona — roads and highways, railroads, earthen dams, Douglas, Joseph City, and Harquahala Valley. water wells, water distribution systems, and While not heavily monitored and restricted, sewage disposal facilities (Schumann, Laney these three areas have had their total allowable and Cripe 1985). Furthermore, substantial irrigated acreage set at the historic levels lead- aquifer compaction can decrease the gradient ing up to the GWMA’s implementation. Active of stream channels leaving subsiding regions Management Areas (AMAs) represent the third and can lead to increased flooding. Agricultural tier and are the most extensively managed and urban lands in southern Arizona that had hydrologic regions of the state. Regions classi- subsided between 1 and 4 meters by the early fied as AMAs were those with severe overdraft 1980s were flooded to record depths in 1983, problems. Pursuant to the Groundwater Code, with more than $50 million in damage report- four regions — Tucson, Phoenix, Prescott, and ed (Federal Emergency Management Agency Pinal — were created and were ordered by the 1983). Fissures in the earth’s surface as a result state to have their groundwater resources of land subsidence can also lead to aquifer con- closely managed and regulated. A fifth AMA, tamination. Fissures that extend to water table the Santa Cruz AMA, has since been added. depths can provide a direct path for pesticides, Most long-term groundwater planning in herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and animal Arizona focuses on the AMAs and manifests wastes that may be contained in surface runoff itself in the form of “Management Plans.” from agricultural lands (Schumann, Laney and According to the GWMA, the Arizona Cripe 1985). Lacking the sediment filtration Department of Water Resources (ADWR) that accompanies natural percolation, this is required to produce a series of five groundwater represents potential human Management Plans for each of the AMAs health risks. spanning the forty-five year period from 1980 Groundwater overdraft currently takes place to 2025. Each AMA on an annual basis in all three of the lower has different manage- If the transition to long-term sustainable basin states and also in Mexico’s Mexicali ment goals. For exam- management of the basin is to take Valley. This problem persists despite legislation ple, the Phoenix, place, the problem of long-term ground- and other efforts to bring it under control. If Tucson, and Prescott water overdraft will have to be resolved. the transition to long-term sustainable manage- AMAs are hoping to It is in the interests of lower basin stake- ment of the basin is to take place, the problem reach “safe yield” — holders and water managers to do so. of long-term groundwater overdraft will have to the condition where be resolved. It is in the interests of lower basin extractions do not exceed recharge — by 2025. stakeholders and water managers to do so. The goal of the Pinal AMA, an area primarily 1. Arizona dependent on agriculture, “is to allow the development of non-irrigation water uses, Both the construction of the Central Arizona extend the life of the agricultural economy for Project (CAP) and passage of Arizona’s land- as long as feasible, and preserve water supplies mark 1980 Groundwater Management Act for future non-agricultural uses” (ADWR 1991). (GWMA) were aimed at correcting the state’s

27 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Historically, average groundwater with- grams and planned measures will alleviate drawals in the AMAs have exceeded recharge only a portion of the groundwater overdraft in by approximately 2 maf per year (ADWR the AMAs by the “safe yield” deadline. Based 1994). Largely due to Colorado River water on current Management Plan projections, delivered through the CAP, current groundwa- groundwater overdraft in the AMAs will exceed ter mining in the AMAs has been reduced to a 620,000 acre-feet per year in 2025. Table 7 rate of approximately 1 million af/year. shows water supply and demand by AMA for Despite their “safe yield” goals, current pro- 1990 and 2025.

Table 7 Water Demand and Supply by Arizona Active Management Area 1990 and 2020

Active Management Area Phoenix a Pinal Prescott Tucson Year 1990 2025 1990 2025 1990 2025 f 1990 2025 h Population 2,277,957 5,335,649 70,000 146,000 52,200 128,400 751000 1693000 Water Demands (1000 Acre-feet) Agricultural Indian NA NA 162 209 NA NA NA Non-Indian NA NA 963 635 NA NA NA Total Agricultural 1,773 1,015 1,125 844 17.8 5.4 113 99 Municipal 749 b 1,419 b 14 26 7.4 e 17.7 143 297 Industrial 69 106 25 53 2.4 3.3 69 98 Other 87 87 181 141 d 2.2 2.2 5 5 Total Demand 2,677 2,627 1,345 1,064 29.8 28.6 330 499 Water Supply (1000 Acre-feet) Surface Water Local Surface 892 940 c 182 172 0.7 0.7 0 10 i Imported Surface (CAP) 264 601 c 604 441 0 7.6 0 215 Total Surface 1,156 1,541 786 613 0.7 8.3 0 225 Groundwater Natural Recharge 41 41 26 26 7 7 62 62 Incidental & Artificial Recharge 783 c 373 c 339 128 9.6 8.7 58 52 Overdraft (Groundwater Mining) 587 245 190 287 10.7 -1.1 g 200 90 Total Groundwater 1,412 660 555 441 27.3 14.6 320 204 Reclaimed Water 109 426 4 10 1.8 5.7 10 70 Total Supplies 2,677 2,627 1,345 1,064 29.8 28.6 330 499

a Phoenix AMA data are projections based on Second Management Plan Programs being fully implemented. It is the expected scenario. b Phoenix AMA includes urban irrigation. c Phoenix supply data are modified such that the Augmentation classification given in their Second Management Plan is distributed to the appropriate categories. In 1990, 5 thousand acre-feet (taf) artificial recharge. In 2020, 25 taf artificial recharge, 10 taf from weather modification to CAP, 48.2 taf from Plan 6 to Local Surface, 22 taf added to CAP, 73.5 taf water transfers added to Imported Supply. d Includes 29 taf to satisfy a water transfer that will send water in 2000 to the city of Mesa, Phoenix AMA. e Includes Exempt Wells. f 2025 projections assuming conservation and CAP water. g Negative number signifies recharge to aquifer. h Projections assuming Second Management Plan Conservation. i Supply augmentation project designed to trap surface runoff currently not being utilized (Rillito River Project).

28 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

While there are numerous reasons for the continuing shortfall, the method in which Table 8 groundwater pumping rights were established Groundwater Overdraft in Southern California 1990 and 2020 within the AMAs as a result of the Ground- Region 1990 2020 water Management Act in 1980 is surely a South Coast HSA 22,000 0 contributor. Grandfathered irrigation rights Colorado River HSA 75,000 70,000 were based on the amount of acreage irrigated Southern California 97,000 70,000 with groundwater from the years 1975 to 1980 (ADWR 1987). The land must have been irri- Source: CDWR 1994, CDWR 1993 gated with groundwater some time during that timespan in order to have the “rights” to According to official CDWR estimates, 70,000 irrigate it in the future. While grandfathered acre-feet are expected to be mined in the irrigation rights do not specify how much Colorado River HSA in the year 2020 (CDWR groundwater can be pumped, they do 1993). While the CDWR has excluded overdraft- determine which acres have the rights to be ed groundwater as a source of supply when irrigated into the indefinite future. conducting water balances and making future The problem is that the aforementioned projections, there is no explicit plan to reduce time period dedicated to establishing the long-term groundwater overdraft in the state grandfathered rights were some of the highest (Gleick et al. 1995). years of groundwater withdrawals in the 3. Nevada history of the state. 1975, 1976, and 1977 were, respectively, the second, fourth, and Groundwater overdraft conditions have exist- third highest years of statewide groundwater ed in southern Nevada for many decades. Until withdrawal since pumping rates began being 1971, when surface supplies were diverted from recorded in the early 1900s (USGS 1994). the Colorado River, groundwater was the main This means that grandfathered irrigation rights source of water for the region. The Colorado were established at a time when farmers were River Basin Planning Area is one of fourteen either intentionally or unintentionally irrigat- major hydrological areas in the state and con- ing with groundwater the majority of the land sists of 27 sub-basins that underlie Clark and they owned, disproportionately representing Lincoln Counties. Like the Colorado River the historical practices of the farmers. The law itself, groundwater resources in the region have is now structured so that these farmers are been over-apportioned. Groundwater pumping entitled to irrigate the same land with ground- permits issued by the State Engineer’s Office water even if it contributes to overdraft. grossly outstrip estimated perennial yields in almost half of the sub-basins in the region.7 2. California The sum of “total volume of permitted, certi- Groundwater overdraft in the southern fied, and vested groundwater rights which are California portion of the basin is estimated at recognized by the State Engineer and can be some 97,000 af/year (See Table 8) (CDWR withdrawn in a groundwater basin in any given 1994). Of that, 80 percent occurs in what the year” is classified as committed resources for California Department of Water Resources calls the sub-basin (NDCNR 1992). Out of the 27 sub- the Colorado River Hydrological Study Area basins in the Colorado River Basin Planning (HSA) — an area predominantly supporting Area, 12 have committed resources that exceed- agriculture. Unlike the state of Arizona, very lit- ed the perennial yield of the sub-basin. Table 9 tle is being done at the state planning level to shows the estimated perennial yield and 1992 abate long-term overdraft conditions. committed resources for the 12 sub-basins of Groundwater withdrawals in the state, with the southern Nevada that are over-apportioned. In exception of certain adjudicated basins in the total, legal rights to use groundwater in those greater Los Angeles and Central Coast areas, sub-basins exceeds the sustainable yield by are largely unregulated and unmonitored. almost 300 percent.

7 The perennial yield is the amount of usable water from a groundwater aquifer that can be economically withdrawn and consumed each year for an indefinite period of time (NDCNR 1992).

29 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Table 9 Over-Apportioned Groundwater Sub-Basins of Southern Nevada as of 1992

Estimated Committed Sub-Basin Perennial Yield Resources Difference

Las Vegas Valley 30,000 a 91,257 -61,257 Lower Meadow Wash 5,000 29,680 -24,680 Panaca Valley 9,000 28,134 -19,134 Virgin River Valley 3,600 13,307 -9,707 Dry Valley 1,000 7,207 -6,207 Piute Valley 600 6,612 -6,012 Black Mountains Area 1,300 6,612 -5,312 Clover Valley 1,000 3,690 -2,690 Rose Valley 100 1,660 -1,560 Colorado River Valley 200 1,606 -1,406 Patterson Valley 4,500 5,435 -935 Garnet valley 400 930 -530

Total 56,700 196,130 -139,430

a Revised estimate for Las Vegas Valley perennial yield based on personal communication with Bob Coache, State Engineer’s Office, 1996. Source: NDWR 1992.

Committed resources, however, do not Engineer’s Office, personal communication, represent the amount of water actually 1996). With the exception of the Las Vegas pumped in a given year. Water officials in Valley sub-basin, which utilizes closer to 75 southern Nevada have little idea how much percent of its water permits, this rough average water is currently being pumped in the region. also holds true for sub-basins in the Colorado Since “inventories” are conducted by the State River planning area (B. Coache, Nevada State Engineer’s Office in only a few of the sub- Engineer’s Office, personal communication, basins of the Colorado River Basin Planning 1996). Given that almost half of the over-appor- Area, there is no clear idea what percentage of tioned basins are thought to utilize more than permitted water rights (committed resources) 50 percent of committed resources (B. Coache, is actually being pumped in the region. Very Nevada State Engineer’s Office, personal com- few of the wells outside the Las Vegas Valley munication, 1996), this planning area estimate sub-basin are metered and use is sporadic. can be seen as a conservative number for Farmers in the northern portion of the determining groundwater use. Table 10 shows Colorado River planning area, for example, estimates for groundwater overdraft in the region. may only exercise a groundwater right to sup- plement irrigation during dry years. During 4. Mexico times of above average rainfall, no pumping Due to a paucity of data in Mexico on will occur in those areas. However, if ground- groundwater use and the geo-hydrology of the water rights are not exercised through the region, it is difficult to determine with certain- pumping of groundwater at least once every ty whether, or to what degree, water is being five years, the State Engineer has the authority overdrafted. Preliminary calculations here esti- to revoke the permit, though groundwater per- mate groundwater overdraft to be roughly 96, mits have seldom been revoked. 000 af/year in the Mexicali Valley and Mesa Statewide, a gross estimate of the percentage Arenosa aquifers. This estimate is based upon of committed resources that is actually the difference between known supply and 1988 pumped is 50 percent (H. Ricci, Nevada State to 1989 demand for the region. (See Table 11).

30 Principal Challenges Facing the Lower Colorado River Basin

Table 10 Groundwater Use in Nevada’s Colorado River Planning Area Perennial Committed Estimated Estimated Sub-basin Yield Resources Pumping Overdraft a 212 Las Vegas Valley 30,000 91,257 68,443 38,443 205 Lower Meadow 5,000 29,680 14,840 9,840 203 Panaca 9,000 28,134 14,067 5,067 222 Virgin River 3,600 13,307 6,654 3,054 214 Piute 600 6,612 3,306 2,706 198 Dry 1,000 7,207 3,604 2,604 215 Black Mountains 1,300 6,612 3,306 2,006 204 Clover 1,000 3,690 1,845 845 199 Rose 100 1,660 830 730 213 Colorado River 200 1,606 803 603 216 Garnet 400 930 465 65 207 White River 37,000 25,007 12,504 0 209 Pahranagat 25,000 9,714 4,857 0 219 Muddy River 37,000 8,328 4,164 0 220 Lower Moapa 16,500 5,660 2,830 0 202 Patterson 4,500 5,435 2,718 0 201 Spring 4,100 1,164 582 0 211 3 Lakes 5,000 521 261 0 218 California Wash 2,200 506 253 0 200 Eagle 300 297 149 0 223 Gold Butte 500 92 46 0 208 Pahroc 21,000 7 4 0 224 Greasewood 300 5 3 0 221 Tule Desert 1,000 4 2 0 206 Kane Springs 0 0 0 0 210 Coyote Spring 18,000 0 0 0 217 Hidden 200 0 0 0 Total 224,800 247,435 146,532 50,962 b a Assumes no incidental recharge from irrigation. b Due to artificial groundwater recharge programs in the Las Vegas Valley sub-basin (LVVWD 13,360 af/yr and North Las Vegas 1,640 af/yr (15,000 total annual average)), sustainable pumping in the region increases from 80,570 to 95,570, while overdraft is reduced from 65,962 to 50,962 af/yr. Source: NDWR 1992, H. Ricci and B. Coache, State Engineer’s Office, personal communication, 1996.

Table 11 Mexicali Valley Water Balance 1988-1989 Water Supply Acre-Feet Local Surface 0 Colorado River a 1,640,000 Other Imported 0 Sustainable Groundwater Extractions b 727,400 Direct Reuse 0 Total 2,367,400 Water Demand (1988-1989) Urban 184,500 Agriculture (Irrigation District No. 14) 2,278,600 Total 2,463,100 S&D Balance (Groundwater Overdraft) -95,700 a Alamo intake 1952-1992 annual average (IBWC 1992). b Mexicali and Mesa Arenosa aquifers. Source: Waller 1993; CNDA 1990.

31 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Sustainable groundwater extractions in the Management Act, which called for “safe yield” region are said to be 727,400 af/year (Waller to be reached in the four Active Management 1993), with another 1,640,000 af supplied by Areas by 2025, groundwater overdraft in the the Colorado River in an average year. The AMA’s is now projected to total more than total urban and agricultural demand of 620,000 af/year in 2025. Groundwater over- 2,463,000 af exceeds supply by almost 100,000 draft in the southern California portion of af/year. However, more research is needed in the basin totals an estimated 97,000 af/year. order to gain a better understanding of the In southern Nevada, some 51,000 acre-feet — state of groundwater levels and long-term over- over a third of the region’s current ground- draft in the region. water supply — comes from groundwater 5. Lower Basin Summary overdraft. Thus, approximately 1,244,000 af of groundwater mining is occurring annually Serious groundwater overdraft in the lower in the lower Colorado basin, and must be Colorado basin persists despite legislative and eliminated to bring groundwater pumping other efforts to bring it under control. In into a sustainable equilibrium. Table 12 shows Arizona, groundwater mining continues at a present and projected lower basin totals for rate of approximately 1 million af/year. groundwater overdraft. Despite the state’s landmark 1980 Groundwater

Table 12 Groundwater Overdraft in the Lower Colorado Basin 1990 and 2020

Region 1990 2020 Arizona 1,000,000 621,000 a Southern Nevada 51,000 NA Southern California 97,000 70,000 Mexicali Valley, Mexico 96,000 NA Lower Basin Total 1,244,000 691,000

a ADWR estimate for 2025 in Active Management Areas only.

32 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

V. Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

A. DEFINING SUSTAINABLE trying to find the water to meet some projec- WATER USE tion of future desires, it is time to plan for meeting present and This report began with the premise that cur- future human and eco- It is time to plan for meeting present rent water planning in general, and in the logical needs with the and future human and ecological needs Colorado River basin in particular, represents a water that is available, with the water that is available, and to failure of water-resource institutions to forge and to determine what determine what desires can be satisfied common goals and suitable management prac- desires can be satis- within the limits of our resources. tices for sustainable water use. Also lacking are fied within the limits attempts to seek agreement on principles to of our resources. This is an essential change. resolve conflicts over water in an integrated Water is a common good and community way. The twentieth-century water-develop- resource, but it is also used as a private good or ment paradigm, which has been driven by an economic commodity; it is not only a necessity ethic of growth powered by continued expan- for life but also a recreational resource; it is sion of water-supply infrastructure, has been imbued with cultural values and plays a part in stalled for the last two decades as social values the social life of our communities. The princi- and political and economic conditions have ples of sustainability and equity can help changed. Meaningful change towards a new bridge the gap between such diverse and com- ethic has to begin with a dialogue on the ulti- peting interests. Table 13 presents a set of sus- mate ends of water-resource policy. tainability criteria that can be used as the basis Sustainability and equity are primary goals for guiding sustainable water resource manage- from which to begin. Simply stated, these goals ment. The sustainability criteria provide a place a high value on maintaining the integrity framework for prioritizing competing interests of water resources and the flora, fauna, and and for making decisions about water use. human societies that have developed around They are not, by themselves, recommenda- them. In related work, the Pacific Institute has tions for actions; rather they are endpoints for defined sustainable water use as the use of policy — they lay out specific societal goals water that supports the ability of human society that could, or should, be attained. While debate to endure and flourish into the indefinite future on how to attain these goals will be regionally without undermining the integrity of the hydrolog- specific, having a set of clear targets will help ical cycle or the ecological systems that depend on focus future policy decisions. it (Gleick et al. 1995, Gleick 1996). Rather than

Table 13 Sustainability Criteria for Water Planning

1. A basic water requirement will be guaranteed to all humans to maintain human health. 2. A basic water requirement will be guaranteed to restore and maintain the health of ecosystems. 3. Water quality will be maintained to meet certain minimum standards. These standards will vary depending on location and how the water is to be used. 4. Human actions will not impair the long-term renewability of freshwater stocks and flows. 5. Data on water resources availability, use, and quality will be collected and made accessible to all parties. 6. Institutional mechanisms will be set up to prevent and resolve conflicts over water. 7. Water planning and decision-making will be democratic, ensuring representation of all affected parties and fostering direct participation of affected interests.

33 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

These criteria lay out human and environ- B. FREEING UP WATER mental priorities for water use, taking into THROUGH MORE account not only the needs of the current populations, but also those of future generations. SUSTAINABLE PATTERNS The first two criteria set out basic allocations OF USE for humans and ecosystems, which are to be As was discussed in detail previously, serious satisfied before other demands. In this respect, groundwater overdraft in the lower Colorado we followed a strategy of defining “basic needs” basin persists despite efforts to bring it under requirements similar to that laid out by control. More than 1.2 million acre-feet of Agenda 21, the United Nations Programme of groundwater overpumping is occurring Action (UN 1992), developed at the 1992 Earth annually in the lower basin and relevant Summit. Agenda 21’s “call to action” sets as parts of Mexico and must be eliminated to immediate objectives the integration of ecosys- bring groundwater basins into a sustainable tem requirements into water-resources man- equilibrium. Satisfying current and future agement, the satisfaction of basic human demands without depending on non-renewable needs, the incorporation of rational economic groundwater supplies is an essential compo- approaches for human uses of water, and the nent of a sustainable basin-wide management design, implementation, and evaluation of sus- strategy. Long-term management plans that tainable water programs with both economic do not address this issue will eventually fail and social compo- when non-renewable nents. New ways of managing water and, groundwater supplies The sustainability quite likely, some reallocation of water are no longer eco- criteria not only set will also be needed in order to restore nomically available out quantity and qual- and maintain aquatic ecosystems on and water users are ity requirements, but the Colorado mainstem, its tributaries, forced to find alterna- also set an upper and in the delta. tive supplies else- limit to water use and where. provide some institu- Additionally, new tional guidance. As long as the minimum ways of managing water and, quite likely, needs are met, then all remaining demands on some reallocation of water will also be needed water are acceptable as long as they do not in order to restore and maintain aquatic impair the renewability of the resource and as ecosystems on the Colorado mainstem, its trib- long as allocations are equitable between pre- utaries, and in the delta. In many instances, sent and future generations. The criteria do threatened and endangered species on the not provide strict rules for how best to allocate mainstem are not necessarily negatively these remaining demands — rather they lay impacted by the quantity of water in the out guidelines for a process of how to decide Colorado River, but rather by the timing of the among conflicting demands. Because these flows. The delta, however, will most remaining demands often conflict, social value likely require an increased volume of water judgments will be required to set standards or inflow for its restoration. even decide which demands should come Determining what values — ecological, before others. It is easier to agree on and quan- cultural, and economic — can and should be tify minimum standards for human health, restored in the delta is no easy task. Clear which have some biophysical basis, than it is to priorities would seem to include securing determine how much water should be allocat- water for the Cienega de Santa Clara and ed for irrigation or for industrial use, but these enhancing fresh water flows in the Rio decisions need to be made as well. Hardy portion of the delta, both for wetlands restoration and for use by the Cocopa Indians. Beyond these, however, is the issue of whether greater annual flows to the Sea of Cortez are needed to restore the fisheries there. Perhaps a

34 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

flushing out of the delta once every few years the Law of the River, there are numerous would provide substantial ecological benefits. mechanisms that can be implemented in order The science does not yet exist to adequately to redirect water toward ecosystem restoration answer these questions. Long-term studies are and maintenance. The following are possible necessary to determine how much water is tools that can be used alone or together for needed, and definitive answers may not be freeing up water for environmental needs, available for some time. For purposes of illus- including restoration of the delta: tration, we assume here that 500,000 acre-feet • Increased assessments for all Colorado River per year is required to restore some degree of water A fee could be instituted on all uses ecosystem health to the delta. This flow — 3 of Colorado River water to help pay for percent of the Colorado’s average annual flow “public good” uses of the river such as — could be used, for example, to re-create addi- ecosystem restoration and maintenance. tional wetland areas for birds and wildlife, to Funds would be collected and managed by supply the Cocopa Indians, and to allow for the Bureau of Reclamation or an overarch- some minimal discharge of river water to the ing river basin commission, whose board upper Sea of Cortez. It is possible, of course, would include representatives of all stake- that meaningful restoration of ecological values holders. All stakeholders would play a role could require much more. It is also possible in setting the fee and in deciding how the that substantial ecological and cultural values funds get used. Revenues generated from could be restored with less water. In order to the increased assessments would be used gain a general understanding of what types of to purchase water in long-term lease changes in water use patterns would be neces- arrangements with Indian tribes or with sary to improve ecosystem health in the basin, other willing sellers. For example, based on 500,000 af/yr divided proportionally among current consumptive uses in the upper and basin states’ respective basic entitlements is lower basins, over $21 million in revenues chosen for the sake of simplicity. Table 14 could be generated annually if a $2.00 per summarizes the water use reductions needed acre-foot assessment were added for envi- in each region of the basin to arrive at our ronmental restoration and maintenance. hypothetical water obligation to the delta, as well as to eliminate groundwater overdraft. • Water surcharges on all voluntary water trans- From market-based approaches to amending fers of Colorado River water Through this

Table 14 Water Use Reductions Needed to Eliminate Groundwater Overdraft in the Lower Basin and to Satisfy Hypothetical Water Obligation to Colorado River Delta (acre-feet per year)

To Meet Environ- Total Basin Entity To Eliminate mental Obligation Water Use Overdraft Groundwater to the Delta a Reduction

Southern Nevada 51,000 9,000 60,000 Arizona 1,000,000 85,000 1,085,000 Southern California 97,000 135,000 232,000 Mexico 96,000 45,000 141,000

Basin totals 1,244,000 274,000 1,518,000

a Environmental obligation to delta assumed to be a minimum of 500,000 af/year. Each basin entity’s contribution is assumed to be proportional to its respective Colorado River water entitlement under the “Law of the River.” Not shown here is the upper basin’s environmental obligation to the delta, 226,000 af, which makes up the remainder of the 500,000 af/year requirement.

35 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

scheme, a certain percentage of marketed this scenario, California, with 27 percent Colorado River water would be set aside for of the river’s annual entitlements, would environmental restoration. For example, a 5 contribute 135,000 af; Arizona, 85,000 af; percent water surcharge on a voluntary Mexico 45,000 af; and Nevada, 9,000 af. transfer of 30,000 af/year would free up 1,500 acre-feet for ecosystem recovery. It should be noted that if this scenario were • Surcharges on water banked in the Colorado to come to fruition, it would be politically River system of reservoirs Currently, there is infeasible and socially undesirable for junior considerable discussion about various water rights holders in each state to assume strategies for water banking on the the full burden for delta restoration. For exam- Colorado mainstem. Under this scheme, ple, California currently uses some 600,000 water conserved by a basin user, that is in acre-feet more than its basic entitlement, with turn banked on the Colorado mainstem, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern would be subject to either a one-time sur- California (MWD) as its most junior water charge or a lesser fee on an annual basis. rights holder. As the upper basin, Indian tribes This charge could be in the form of dollars around the basin, and other lower basin states or water. For example, a one-time 5 percent reach full utilization of their entitlements, water surcharge on the 185,000 af now MWD will already be forced to reduce its use banked by the Metropolitan Water District of the river’s water. Ongoing Indian tribes of Southern California in Lake Mead, water settlements within California will also be would generate 10,000 acre-feet for restora- taken from MWD’s apportionment. For MWD tion purposes. All water that is acquired by to be fully responsible for meeting California’s the Bureau of Reclamation or a river basin obligation toward delta restoration efforts out commission through these various sur- of its remaining entitlement is both unrealistic charges can be stored within the Colorado and inequitable. River system of reservoirs until critical Reallocated water to meet the environmen- periods when marginal additional flows tal obligations would have to be shared equi- will result in significant environmental tably among the water users of each state. benefits. Colorado River water users in each state would • Amend the Law of the River so that each have to negotiate a just method of distributing basin state contributes water in proportion to the obligation. Due to provisions included in current river entitlements As opposed to the the Law of the River, unsettled Indian tribes market-oriented approaches above, this water claims are to be met through the state’s scenario would involve a federal mandate basic apportionment in which the tribal lands setting each party’s contribution to an are located. Their contributions will have to be environmental restoration fund proportion- quantified during such negotiations in order to ally to each party’s respective entitlements determine their delta obligation. to Colorado River water. For example, C. ACHIEVING THE NEEDED assuming that 500,000 af/yr was the amount of water determined by experts to WATER SAVINGS be needed for significant ecosystem Freeing up nearly 1.5 maf of water in the restoration in the delta, the upper basin lower Colorado basin to stabilize groundwater would contribute 225,000 af or 45 percent resources and support minimal delta restora- of the 500,000 af needed.8 This would be tion will not be easy. Already the region the case since, under the Law of the River, (including Mexico) is tapping the Colorado it has been granted 45 percent of all annu- River for some 8.9 maf/year (USBR 1995 tele- al entitlements (7.5 maf/16.5 maf). Under fax; IBWC 1992), virtually its entire allotment.

8 No specific amount of water has yet been identified as vital to restoring some of the ecosystems of the delta. The amount described here is speculative, but evaluating how to meet any future delta water demands can provide insight into appropriate policies and likely problems.

36 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

Population in the region is projected to grow should be done. The latter can only be decided by more than 66 percent between 1990 and through a process of political consensus-build- 2025, from just over 23 million to more than 38 ing that includes all stakeholders. million. Satisfying new water demands will be There are three principal ways agriculture difficult enough; returning nearly 1.5 maf to can reduce its demand on the region’s water groundwater basins and the environment resources — by investing in improved irriga- would seem close to impossible. We believe tion efficiency, by switching to crops that have such a goal can be achieved given new priori- a lower water requirement, and by removing ties, policies, and planning procedures. More land from irrigation. At the moment, farmers’ importantly, while people may argue about decisions regarding how much land to irrigate, specific issues, such as the actual amount of what crops to grow, and what kind of irrigation water that needs to be reallocated toward the methods to use, while perhaps rational at the environment, we believe the overarching farm level, are skewed by the failure of public principles advanced here — such as commit- policies to provide proper signals regarding ting some amount toward restoration of the water’s scarcity value. As a result, water is mis- delta — are more important. allocated; more is used in agriculture than is With the potential for new water source efficient and desirable from a broader social development extremely limited (see section on perspective. Water Supply and Demand in the Lower In the arid and semi-arid climates of the Colorado Basin), efforts to achieve ecologically American Southwest, crop production is even sustainable water use will depend on reducing more water-intensive than in most parts of the and managing water demand. Conservation, world. Over 1.2 million hectares (3 million increased efficiency, recycling, reuse, changes acres) of cropland are irrigated in the lower in the agricultural crop mix, and the retiring of basin and Mexico, and much of this land is agricultural land are among the cost-effective growing highly water-intensive crops. Reliable measures for saving water. Slowing the rate of estimates of the water consumption require- population growth, while politically more diffi- ments for many of the crops grown in this cli- cult, is likely also essential for achieving sus- mate were derived through studies conducted tainable patterns of water use in the region. over 50 years on private and university farms 1. Reducing Agricultural Water Use: near Tempe, Mesa, and Phoenix, Arizona (Erie Arizona as an Illustrative Example et al. 1982) (see Table 15). In general, crops Agriculture currently accounts for approxi- with long growing seasons tend to require mately 64 percent of total water demand in the more water than those with shorter growing lower Colorado River basin, and a considerably seasons, but other crop characteristics influ- higher share of total water consumption. ence water needs as well. Alfalfa, with a grow- Balancing groundwater use with recharge and ing season 75 days shorter than oranges, needs achieving increased river flows to the delta will nearly twice as much water — and is the most require that farm water use decline. Like all water-intensive crop grown in the region, mea- good business people, farmers in the region sured by water consumed per acre. generally attempt to maximize their net prof- Matching water requirements for various its, and select crops and growing methods that crops with the area harvested by crop in a help them do this. Perhaps more than most given region leads to estimates of the total business people, however, many farmers give water consumption requirement for a particu- weight in their decisionmaking to family tradi- lar crop in that region. Table 16 shows these tions in farming, personal experience with par- results for Arizona. With 145,000 hectares ticular crops, and community values. Thus, (360,000 acres) in Arizona planted in cotton in how to restructure agriculture to enable the 1994, cotton consumed more than 1.2 maf. region to achieve sustainable patterns of water Together, cotton and alfalfa hay consumed 2.2 use is a complex issue. Our analysis here of million af of the state’s water — equal to more Arizona agriculture is intended to shed light than three-fourths of Arizona’s Colorado River only on what is possible, not necessarily what entitlement and twice the level of unsustain-

37 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

able groundwater overdraft statewide. Table 15 More water is actually consumed in irrigat- Seasonal Water Consumption for Selected Crops, ed crop production than these crop water Southwestern United States requirements suggest because of inefficiencies in the methods used to deliver water to the Crop Water Growing Length of crops. The vast majority of Arizona’s cropland Crop Consumption Season Growing Season (acre-feet/acre) (days) requires irrigation in order to satisfy crop water needs, with over 360,000 hectares Alfalfa 6.19 Feb.-Nov. 285 (about 906,000 acres) under irrigation in 1993 Grapefruit 4.00 Jan.-Dec. 360 (Irrigation Journal 1994). On nearly 90 percent Sugarbeets 3.57 Oct.-July 300 of this irrigated land, water was delivered Cotton 3.43 April-Nov. 225 using surface or gravity systems (See Table 17). Navel oranges 3.26 Jan.-Dec. 360 These are generally the least efficient irriga- Wheat 2.15 Nov.-May 210 tion methods, unless laser leveling of fields or Barley 2.08 Nov.-May 180 other efficiency-enhancing methods are prac- Potatoes 2.03 Feb.-June 120 ticed. Nine percent of Arizona’s irrigated area Dry Onions 1.94 Nov.-May 195 used sprinkler systems of some type, which Soybeans 1.85 June-Oct. 135 tend to be more efficient than the gravity Cantaloup, early 1.71 April-July 120 methods. Just 1 percent was watered by drip Broccoli 1.64 Sept.-Feb. 165 systems, which deliver water directly to the Cauliflower 1.55 Sept.-Jan. 150 roots of crops through surface or subsurface Cantaloup, late 1.40 August-Nov. 120 tubing. When operated properly, drip systems Carrots 1.38 Sept.-March 180 can achieve efficiencies in the range of 95 per- Lettuce 0.71 Sept.-Dec. 105 cent (Postel 1992), but they are not effective on all kinds of crops. Source: Erie et al. 1982. In Table 18, we estimate the total volume of irrigation water consumed by crop, assuming a statewide average irrigation efficiency of 60 percent and that three-quarters of the 40 per- Table 16 cent not used beneficially is lost irretrievably Estimated Total Water Consumption by Selected Crops through evaporation or other means. Table 18 in Arizona, 1994 also provides a useful measure of economic water productivity — the economic value (as Area Crop Water Estimated Total Crop Crop Harvested Consumption Water Consumption determined by average price) derived from a (thousand acres) (acre-feet/acre) (thousand acre-feet) each acre-foot of water consumed. Lettuce, Cotton 359.9 3.43 1,234.5 cantaloupe, cauliflower, and broccoli yield far more value per unit of consumed water than Alfalfa Hay 160.0 6.19 990.4 any of the other major crops grown in Arizona. Wheat 122.0 2.15 262.3 Alfalfa, the most water-intensive crop and one Lettuce 59.2 0.72 42.6 of low economic value, has the lowest econom- Barley 33.0 2.08 68.6 ic water productivity — just $95/af consumed. Cantaloup 14.4 1.56 b 22.5 Given the projected population growth for Oranges 10.6 3.26 34.6 Arizona, much if not all of the 1.2 maf of water use reductions needed to achieve balanced Broccoli 9.4 1.64 15.4 groundwater use and to meet environmental Grapefruit 5.9 4.00 23.6 water obligations to the delta will need to come Cauliflower 5.7 1.55 8.8 from agriculture. This assumption is supported

a One acre equals 0.405 hectares. by the official state projections for 2025, which b Average of the early and late cantaloup water consumption requirement. show increasing CAP deliveries and decreasing agricultural water use. Producing these savings Sources: Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service 1994; Erie et al. 1982. can be far less painful than one might think

38 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

Table 17 Area Irrigated by Type of Irrigation Method, Arizona, 1993

Irrigation Method Area Irrigated Typical Efficiency a (thousand acres) (percent)

Surface/Gravity 810.0 40-60 Flooding from ditches 410.0 Open ditch, siphon tubes 391.0 Other 9.0

Sprinkler 84.0 65-80 Center pivot 50.0 Solid set 30.0 Side roll/wheel line 4.0

Microirrigation 12.0 90-95 Surface drip 8.8 Subsurface drip 3.2

Total Area Irrigated 906.0 a Efficiency ranges are typical on-farm application efficiencies with use of these systems, and are not specific to Arizona. b One acre equals 0.405 hectares.

Source: Areas irrigated by method from 1993 U.S. Irrigation Survey, Irrigation Journal, January-February 1994.

Table 18 Estimated Irrigation Water Consumed and Value per Acre-Foot Consumed for Selected Crops, Arizona, 1994

Estimated Total Value of Economic Value Irrigation Water Harvested Per Acre-Foot Consumed a Crop Consumed Crop (1,000 acre-feet) (1,000 dollars) (dollars)

Cotton 1604.9 308,486 192 Alfalfa hay 1287.5 122,400 95 Wheat 341.0 46,290 136 Lettuce 55.4 183,719 3,316 Barley 89.2 8,935 100 Cantaloup 29.3 51,322 1,752 Oranges 45.0 12,563 279 Broccoli 20.0 21,817 1,091 Grapefruit 30.7 4,626 151 Cauliflower 11.4 20,748 1,820

a Assumes average irrigation efficiency of 60 percent and that three-fourths of the 40 percent not used beneficially is lost irretrievably through evaporation or other means.

Source: Crop value from AASS 1994.

39 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

under a strategy com- also boost their efficiencies. One that has bining irrigation effi- spread rapidly in northwest Texas, where farm- ciency improve- ers confront declining well yields from the ments, crop switch- long-term depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, is ing, and land surge irrigation. Instead of releasing water in a fallowing. continuous stream down the field channels, Substantial room irrigation under the surge method alternates exists to raise the effi- between two rows at specific time intervals. ciency of irrigation The initial wetting somewhat seals the soil, water delivery sys- allowing the next application to advance more tems. Drip irrigation quickly down the furrow. This surging effect is suited to many of reduces percolation losses at the head of the the crops grown in field and distributes water more uniformly.

Water to grow livestock feed accounts for at least 40 percent of Arizona, including Farmers who adapt conventional furrow sys- agricultural water use in the lower basin and Mexico. cotton. With drip tems to this surge technique — which typically methods, water is involves purchase of a valve and timer — have delivered through porous or perforated piping reduced water use by 15-50 percent. For farm- or tubing, installed on or below the soil sur- ers in the Texas High Plains, where savings face, to the crops’ roots. This keeps evaporation have averaged 25 percent, the initial invest- and seepage losses extremely low. Because ment has usually had a payback of one to three water is applied frequently at low doses, opti- years (Postel 1992). mal moisture conditions are maintained for the Finally, sprinkler systems, which tend to be crop, which often boosts yields, and salt is pre- more efficient than gravity methods but less vented from building up in the root zone. efficient than drip, can also be improved. A rel- Farmers typically save energy, as well, because atively new sprinkler design called low-energy water is applied not only in smaller amounts, precision application (LEPA) delivers water but at lower pressure (Postel 1992). closer to the crops by means of drop tubes Studies have shown that cotton farmers in extending vertically from the sprinkler arm to the arid Southwest can cut their water needs just above the soil surface. This greatly reduces by 30-50 percent by switching from conven- losses from evaporation and wind drift. When tional gravity irrigation methods to drip irriga- used in conjunction with water-conserving tion, while often increasing cotton yields at the land preparation methods, LEPA can achieve same time (Wilson et al. 1984). Howard efficiencies as high as 95 percent, competitive Wuertz, owner of Arizona-based Sundance with drip (High Plains Underground Water Farms, has demonstrated the benefits of sub- Conservation District 1995). Northwest Texas surface drip irrigation coupled with minimum- farmers have also widely adopted this tech- tillage techniques on cotton and a variety of nique, and have had paybacks of two to four other crops. The Sundance system combines years on LEPA retrofits of their conventional drip tape or tubing placed 8-10 inches below sprinklers (Postel 1992). the soil in every row of crops, along with mini- Substantial water savings are possible from mum-tillage field adoption of such measures in Arizona. For A strategy to reduce agricultural water equipment designed example, if half of the land area planted in cot- use is to encourage a shift in the overall to leave the shallow ton in 1994 were placed under drip irrigation, cropping pattern from water-intensive drip system undis- and this reduced evaporative losses from 30 crops to less water-intensive ones. turbed. Tests show percent to 5 percent, some 310,000 acre-feet that this method can cut water and energy use would be saved. Placing half of the vegetable by 50 percent compared with conventional sys- and citrus crops under drip irrigation, with tems, while often producing better quality similar reductions in evaporative losses, would crops and higher yields (Murphy 1995). save an additional 37,000 acre-feet. Further, if Although gravity irrigation methods date alfalfa, wheat, and barley fields were to be back thousands of years, new techniques can equipped with surge irrigation or modified

40 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

Table 19 Potential Water Savings Under Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Water Use Scenario, Arizona

Estimated Measure Assumption Water Savings (acre-feet/year) Improvements Half of all irrigated cotton and major vegetable and citrus 445,000 in irrigation efficiency crops is placed under drip irrigation, reducing consumptive water losses from 30 percent to 5 percent; half of irrigated alfalfa, wheat, and barley is upgraded through surge, LEPA, or other means to reduce average consumptive water losses from 30 percent to 15 percent.

Shifts in Cropping One-quarter of cotton and alfalfa irrigated areas is shifted to 362,000 Patterns higher-value citrus and vegetable crops with an average total consumptive use of 2.76 af/acre.

Fallowing of irrigated land 15 percent of irrigated cotton and alfalfa area is fallowed or 433,000 retired permanently.

Total 1,240,000

LEPA systems, and this reduced consumptive 210,000 af/year from the alfalfa switch. Total losses from 30 percent to 15 percent, an addi- savings from this shift in the cropping pattern tional 100,000 acre-feet of savings would result. would amount to 360,000 af/year (See Table Together, such measures could save on the 19). Moreover, total crop revenues would order of 445,000 acre-feet per year, without increase because of the shift to higher valued reducing crop production (See Table 19) crops. Little can be said, however, about farm- A second key component of a strategy to ers’ profits and overall net farm revenues with- reduce agricultural water use is to encourage a out a more detailed analysis of market condi- shift in the overall cropping pattern from tions and changes in production costs and crop water-intensive crops to less water-intensive prices that would accompany the shift. ones. Our estimates suggest that each acre of Land fallowing makes up the third part of cotton produced with conventional irrigation our sustainable agricultural water use scenario. systems results in a consumptive water use of By the early 1990s, 31,000 hectares (77,000 4.46 af (3.43 af to meet cotton’s water con- acres) of agricultural land had already been sumption requirement and 1.03 af because of removed from production in Arizona because irrigation system inefficiencies). An acre of of farm purchases by Phoenix, Tucson, and alfalfa takes 8 af, including irrigation system other cities seeking to secure additional water inefficiencies. By contrast, the crop water supplies for future urban growth (Eden and requirements of the vegetables and citrus crops Wallace 1992). Known popularly as “water listed in Table 16 averages 2.12 af/acre; adding farming” because the cities are interested in an extra 30 percent of consumptive losses the water rights rather than the land, this prac- brings the total irrigation water consumed to tice has proven highly controversial in the 2.76 af/acre. Thus, if one-quarter of the 1994 state, particularly because of its negative cotton and alfalfa irrigated areas were switched impacts on the rural economy and tax base, to a mix of higher-valued fruits and vegetables and community health overall. In 1992, a that averaged 2.76 af/acre of consumptive Groundwater Transfer Bill was passed by the water use, total water savings would amount to state legislature limiting the extent to which 150,000 af/year from the cotton switch and additional water farming could take place

41 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

(Eden and Wallace 1992). Nonetheless, there is consensus among the public that this Arizona’s irrigated area is likely to contract fur- is desirable, a variety of public policy actions ther as declining groundwater levels, the lure will likely be required to make it happen. of profitable water rights sales, and other fac- While these changes are not likely given cur- tors play out. If 15 percent of irrigated cotton rent policies, there are a variety of public poli- and alfalfa land is retired from production over cy options that would make them more attrac- the next twenty-five years, our analysis esti- tive to farmers and communities, including mates water savings of 240,000 af/year and low-interest loans or tax incentives to encour- 190,000 af/year, respectively, for a total savings age investments in irrigation efficiency, tiered from land fallowing of 430,000 af/year. energy pricing that limits excessive groundwa- Our sustainable agricultural water use sce- ter pumping, other economic incentives to nario for Arizona — including irrigation effi- shift crop types, hefty taxes on groundwater ciency improvements, shifts in cropping pat- depletion, and the creation of an environmen- terns, and land fallowing — results in a total tal water bank. Some of these are discussed at estimated water savings of 1,241,400 af/year — greater length in later sections. enough to satisfy both the “no net groundwater 2. Agriculture in California and depletion” criterion and the state’s environ- Mexico mental water obligation to the delta under our hypothetical case. This of course implies no Like Arizona, a large percentage of crops net increase in water use in non-agricultural grown in these two regions is low in value and sectors, which we will turn to shortly. water-intensive. Tables 20 and 21 show the We have shown in this discussion that crop mix and estimated consumptive water use achieving more ecologically sustainable agri- by crop for southern California and the cultural water use in Arizona is possible. If Mexicali Valley. Alfalfa and irrigated pasture

Table 20 Estimated Water Consumption by Selected Crops in Southern California, 1990

Calculated Total Irrigated Average Consumptive Acreage Consumptive Use Crop (thousand acres) Use (af/acre) (thousand acre-feet)

Grain 87 1.77 154 Cotton 37 3.27 121 Sugar Beets 35 3.83 134 Corn 13 2.08 27 Other Field 59 2.61 154 Alfalfa 266 6.09 1,620 Pasture 52 4.44 231 Tomatoes 22 2.36 52 Other Truck 274 1.58 433 Other Deciduous 4 3.25 13 Vineyard 26 2.85 74 Citrus/Olives 193 2.10 405 Regional Total 1,068 3.20 3,418

Source: CDWR 1994

42 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

Table 21 Estimated Water Consumption by Selected Crops in Mexicali Valley, 1990

Total Area Planted Consumptive Consumptive Use Crop Type (thousand acres) Use (af/acre) (thousand acre-feet)

Alfalfa 46 5.44 252 Asparagus 10 5.82 61 Barley 22 1.87 40 Canola 12 2.46 31 Corn 6 2.48 15 Cotton 114 4.50 514 Fruits 1 5.38 7 Onion 8 2.26 17 Rye Grass 35 2.26 78 Sesame 23 3.19 73 Sorghum 21 3.02 62 Soy 0 3.22 0 Vineyard 4 4.87 20 Wheat 148 2.47 366 Various Fall/Winter 17 2.26 39 Various Spring/Summer 18 3.22 57 Regional Total 485 3.36 1,633

Source: CNDA 1991

Table 22 Southern California and Mexicali Valley Alfalfa Fallowing Scenarios

Average Alfalfa Alfalfa Percent Water Use Consumptive Use Acreage Acreage Region Reduction a (acre-feet/acre) Reduction Reduction

Southern California 232,000 6.09 38,095 14%

Mexicali Valley 141,000 5.44 25,919 56%

a To eliminate groundwater overdraft and meet hypothetical environmental obligation to the delta. Source: Calculations based on data provided in CDWR 1994 and CNDA 1991.

43 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

account for 54 percent of the water consumed Figures 5 and 6 provide revenue per water by southern California farmers, and 15 percent use by selected crop type for California and of consumptive agricultural water use in Mexicali Valley. As these figures illustrate, cer- Mexico. Fallowing 14 and 56 percent of the tain crops are very water-intensive from an alfalfa acreage in the two areas respectively economic point of view. These disparities lead would allow both regions to eliminate long- to enormous differences in water productivity. term groundwater overdraft and meet environ- Sunding et al. (1994) have estimated that, for mental obligations for the restoration of the California, the least productive 20 percent of delta (see Table 22). However, fallowing of irrigation water in terms of farm value pro- land, as was discussed in the Arizona case duced less than five percent of total agricultur- study, is only one option for reducing agricul- al revenues. Conversely, the most productive tural water use. Increased irrigation efficiency 20 percent of water accounts for nearly 60 per- and shifts in crop types could also be cent of total farm revenue. These data alone employed to produce water savings. suggest that crop substitution and changing

Figure 5 Revenue Per Acre-Foot of Consumed Water, California (1988) Revenue Per Acre-Foot of Consumed Water, California (1988) 2500

2000

ater 1500

ed w

1000

$ per af consum 500

RICE

RAIN

PICAL

ATO

EYARD

LFALFA COTTON

PASTURE OTHER

AR BEETS

VIN

BTRO

G DECIDUOUS

PISTACH ALMONDS & OTHER FIELD

SU SU

OTHER TRUCK

Figure 6 Revenue Per Acre-FootRevenue Per Acre-foot of Consumed Consumed Water, Water,Mexicali Valley Mexicali (1989) Valley (1989)

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300

$ per af consumed water 200 100 0

s n

o Soy

tto

lfalfa

eyard

a Fruits

Onion

Barley

A Wheat

Seasam V Sorghum

sp Various

Rye Grass

Fall/Winter

Various

Spring/Summer

44 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

patterns of irrigation can produce substantial the need for expensive new dams and reser- water savings. Under certain conditions, net voirs, groundwater wells, and treatment plants. farm revenues could be expected to rise signifi- The idea is spreading that managing demand, cantly at the same time that total water use rather than continual- drops, as higher-valued, but less water-inten- ly building new sup- Achieving sustainable patterns of sive crops are grown. Such results have also plies to meet it, is a urban water use in the region will been demonstrated in a comprehensive study more certain path to require substantial reductions in for California by Gleick et al. (1995). water security — per-capita water use, and quite likely, a braking of population growth. 3. Conservation in Cities while protecting the environment and Although agriculture claims the largest share of often saving money at the same time (Postel water used in the lower Colorado River basin, 1992, Vickers 1991, Gleick et al. 1995). water use in cities is growing most rapidly. In almost every case, successful efforts to Municipal use is determined primarily by two curb domestic water use permanently will factors — the number of people living in an include some combination of economic incen- urban area and the amount of water that is tives, regulations, voluntary retrofits, and pub- used for industrial purposes. Population growth lic outreach that together promote the use of alone will considerably increase urban demand water-saving technologies and behaviors. over the next several decades. The total popu- These measures are mutually reinforcing, and lation within the U.S. regions served at least in work in concert to reduce per-capita water part by water supplies from the lower Colorado demand. A successful conservation program River basin is projected to climb from 21.2 mil- will not only yield cost-savings because of lion in 1990 to nearly 38 million by 2020, an reduced or delayed capital and operation and increase of two-thirds. This includes a project- maintenance expenditures, but can keep fresh ed 90 percent increase in Arizona, a 104 per- water in rivers, streams, and aquifers. cent increase in Southern Nevada, a 57 percent Many cities in the lower Colorado River increase in southern California, and a 91 per- basin have taken steps to encourage conserva- cent increase in Mexico. tion. However, the vast differences in per-capi- Balancing water supply and demand in the ta water use among them suggest that substan- face of such growth would be difficult any- tially greater gains can be made. And a com- where; in a dry climate like the Southwest, parison of even the lowest levels of per-capita it would seem a Herculean task. Each of the urban use in the region with the levels current- major urban centers in the lower Colorado ly achievable with available technologies and region depends on water imported from con- measures suggests that much of the conserva- siderable distance to meet current demand, but tion potential remains untapped. few additional external sources remain to tap. Achieving sustainable patterns of urban water Tucson: An Illustrative Case use in the region will require substantial reduc- Tucson, one of the early cities to break the tions in per-capita water use, and quite likely, historical rise in per-capita water use, is an a braking of population growth. instructive case because it now boasts one of Urban conservation, once viewed as just an the lowest levels of per-capita water use among emergency response to drought, has been large western cities. Water use per person in transformed over the last two decades into a Tucson rose steadily during the early seventies, sophisticated package of measures that offers and in 1974, climbed to 205 gallons per-capita one of the most cost-effective and environmen- per day (gpcd)(total urban demand divided by tally sound ways of balancing water budgets population). Like most water systems, Tucson’s and moving toward more sustainable patterns was designed to meet the city’s peak day of water use. In a select but growing number demand, which typically occurs on one of the of cities in the U.S. and worldwide, water plan- hottest days of summer and can be 2-4 times ners have demonstrated that an assortment of greater than the year-round average daily water efficiency measures can yield perma- demand. This fast-growing peak demand nent water savings and thereby delay or avert spurred the city to action, since continuing to

45 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

meet it would have required large capital out- table inducement to conserve. (For more on lays for drilling new groundwater wells and these rate structures, see the section on building larger transmissions pipes (Tucson “Pricing” below). Water undated). Tucson also makes use of ordinances to pro- A 52 percent increase in water rates over a mote conservation. Plumbing codes adopted in three-year period in the mid-seventies began to 1989 called for water-efficient fixtures in all bring water use down (Kuranz 1996). In addi- new residential and commercial construction. tion, in June 1977, the city initiated its “Beat the These standards, which included 1.6 gallon per Peak” program aimed at cutting outdoor water flush limits for toilets and 2.5 gallon per use by promoting desert landscaping and limit- minute limits for showerheads and faucets, ing lawn watering. Together, these measures were similar to the national water efficiency slashed per-capita water use from 205 gpcd in standards that were later passed as part of the 1974 to 150 gpcd in 1977 — a 26 percent drop in National Energy Policy Act of 1992, and which three years. (See Figure 7). Besides helping slow became effective in January 1994. Thus, the depletion of its aquifers, Tucson’s relatively Tucson began benefiting from these standards modest investment in conservation allowed it to about 5 years earlier than otherwise would defer $45 million in capital costs that would have been the case. The plumbing ordinance is have been needed to meet an otherwise unman- expected to account for half of the city’s pro- aged demand (Postel 1985). jected water savings between 1990 and 2100 Since the mid-seventies, the city has imple- (Tucson Water telefax undated). mented a three-pronged conservation program In February 1991, the city passed a compre- focused on water rate structure incentives, hensive landscape code that encourages ordinances, and education-information. Tucson Xeriscape (a term trademarked by the National Water sets its rates on a cost-of-service basis Xeriscape Council) in landscape design. After and, until recently, applied an inverted block the Greek term xeros, meaning dry, Xeriscape rate structure, according to which the price per designs draw on a variety of attractive indige- unit of water rises with each successive higher nous and drought-tolerant plants, shrubs, and block of usage. In 1993, the city switched to a ground cover as a substitute for the thirsty summer surcharge rate schedule, which was green lawns found in most U.S. suburbs. A believed to provide a more effective and equi- Xeriscaped yard typically requires 30-80 per-

Figure 7 Daily Per-CapitaDaily Per Capita Water Water Use, Use, Tucson, AZ, Arizona,1970-92 1970–92

250

200

150

100

gallons per capita day 50

0 1972 1973 1982 1983 1970 1971 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year

46 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

cent less water than a conventional one, and population over the next 30 years, however, cuts fertilizer and herbicide use as well (Postel total demand under this scenario would rise by 1992). The Tucson ordinance, which applies to nearly 60 percent. If population growth new multifamily, commercial, and industrial remains as projected, achieving a goal of no net development, requires the use of drought-toler- increase in water use by 2025 would require ant plants from a published list and limits non- that water use drop to 89 gpcd, 37 percent less drought tolerant plants to small “oasis” areas. than projected under the current program. For commercial properties, for example, the Potential Commercial/Industrial oasis area is limited to 2.5 percent of the site Water Savings (Tucson Water telefax undated). A third Tucson ordinance makes it illegal to allow water to run Businesses and industries account for more off private property. A full-time “water cop” than 20 percent of municipal water use in enforces the ordinance, usually with warnings Tucson. The potential for commercial and for first-time offenders and then with citations industrial water savings varies case-by-case, if water waste continues. By law, fines of up to but substantial savings are clearly possible with $1000 can be issued (Tucson Water telefax existing technologies. Replacing once-through undated). cooling systems with recirculating ones can The final prong of Tucson’s program — produce some of the largest water savings in public information and education — is many industries, and typically offers a rapid coordinated by a special office within Tucson payback on the investment (Vickers 1991). Water, the city’s water service provider. The Spalding Sports Worldwide, a Massachusetts- “Beat the Peak” campaign, for example, was based sporting goods manufacturer, cut its largely a public information program that water use by 96 percent in just three years, helped cut the daily peak demand by asking largely through installation of a system to recy- citizens voluntarily to water on alternate days cle cooling water (Sweetman 1992, MWRA and to avoid watering between 4 p.m. and 8 1991). A study of 15 companies in the San p.m. during the summer months. In 1992, Jose, California area — including several elec- the program refocused its message to empha- tronics firms, a food processor, and a metal fin- size more efficient water use both indoors isher — showed that a variety of cost-effective and outdoors during the summer, when water conservation measures produced water savings use averages three times greater than in the ranging from 27-90 percent (Manzione et al. winter (Tucson Water telefax undated). 1991, City of San Jose 1990). Through this mix of economic incentives, Indeed, in response to the severe drought of regulations, and public information, Tucson 1987-92, California industries generally have has largely checked the rise in per-capita water invested more heavily than most in water con- use. However, the city’s conservation measures servation, and collectively they demonstrate have not been sufficient to reduce per-capita substantial water-savings potential. A 1990-91 use further — a prerequisite to achieving sus- survey of 640 manufacturing plants in 12 tainable water use in the face of shrinking California counties found a 19 percent reduc- resources and increasing population. Indeed, tion in water use between 1985 and 1989. per-capita urban water use has crept back up These savings were in addition to impressive slightly since the mid-seventies, averaging 161 conservation gains already made during the gpcd between 1982 and 1992. While this is still previous 15 years in response to increasingly low by comparison to most other sizable west- stringent environmental standards. Moreover, ern cities, further reductions are necessary to the study also found that if all California man- stabilize total water use. ufacturing plants achieved the level of the Tucson Water projects that, with its baseline most efficient ones of their type, total water conservation program, per-capita water use use in all the industry groups surveyed would (from total urban demand) will fall from 160 drop another 19 percent (Wade et al. 1991). gpcd to 142 gpcd by 2025 — an 11 percent drop. For the state as a whole, the California Because of a projected 70 percent increase in Department of Water Resources estimated that water use by 1990 in the industrial sector had

47 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

dropped to about 620,000 acre-feet (or nine per- lons per day) as the more efficient models cent of total urban water use) — representing replace the existing stock (Vickers 1993). U.S. an absolute decline of 300,000 af from 1979 water utilities can thus plan on lower indoor (CDWR 1994; CDWR 1994a). During the same water use per-capita over time. As long as the period, total gross industrial production rose 30 standards stay in place and are enforced ade- percent in real terms (DOF 1994). In 1979, on quately, a substantial amount of water conser- an industry-wide level, it took an average of 11 vation will take place automatically. acre-feet of water to produce a million dollars In many states and municipalities, standards of industrial output. By 1990, this figure had comparable to the federal ones have already dropped to under six acre-feet. While details been in effect for some years. As noted earlier, explaining how this improvement in industrial in the case of Tucson, comparable standards water-use efficiency occurred are sketchy, two were passed in 1989. Thus, Tucson’s level of important trends are evident: (1) an improve- residential use — 111 gpcd in 1994 (Kuranz ment in the efficiency with which water is used 1996) — reflects several years worth of new by many of the industrial sectors, and (2) a housing stock that incorporates these efficient shift in the industrial structure of the state plumbing fixtures. Over time, thanks to these away from water-intensive industries. These standards, indoor residential use will drop fur- changes were partly driven by new water-quali- ther. By 2025, the vast majority of plumbing ty standards, the cost of water, the cost of treat- fixtures will likely be of the efficient variety as ing water, and technological improvements. a result of new construction, remodeling, and Between 1985 and 1990 seven major indus- replacement. trial groups (fruits and vegetables, beverages, How much lower could residential use in a paperboard and boxes, refining, concrete, com- city like Tucson go? At least one answer is near munications, and motor vehicles) showed posi- at hand through a demonstration house in tive annual growth rates and absolute declines Tucson called Casa del Agua (CDA). CDA is a in annual water use. Six of these groups single-family home that was designed and improved water-use efficiency more than 40 retrofitted in 1985 by researchers at the percent (Gleick et al. 1995). Five other major University of Arizona to serve as an experi- industries increased their economic output at mental and demonstration house for water rates substantially higher than the rates at conservation. It includes water-efficient plumb- which water use increased (meat, bakery, ing fixtures, native landscaping, rainwater har- foods, metal cans, computers, computer com- vesting, and reuse of greywater (water used ponents, and missiles/space). first in bathroom sinks, tubs, showers, or laun- Given these examples of real savings, it dry and reused, typically for landscape irriga- seems feasible to look for commercial and tion) (Karpiscak et al. 1990). industrial water savings of 20-40 percent in Water use was carefully measured over four urban areas. In the specific case of Tucson, a 30 years, during which two different families lived percent reduction would reduce the base per- in the home, each consisting of two adults and capita water demand of 160 gpcd (approximate- one child. During this period, total water use at ly 20 percent of which is commercial/industri- CDA averaged 81 gpcd, 28 percent less than al) by nearly 10 gpcd, or down to 150 gpcd. the 113 gpcd used by a typical three-person Potential Residential Water Savings household in a detached Tucson home in the With the passage of the federal National mid-eighties. Municipal water use at CDA, aver- Energy Policy Act of 1992, all toilets, faucets, aged only 49 gpcd, 57 percent less than the and showerheads manufactured for residential average Tucson home; of the total water used, water use in the United States must meet spec- 25 gpcd was recycled greywater and 7 gpcd ified standards of efficiency, which took effect was harvested rainfall (Karpiscak et al. 1990). in January 1994. Today, the average U.S. resi- Thus, CDA demonstrates that with a major dent’s use of these fixtures takes an estimated effort, residential water use in Tucson could be 46 gallons per day; within 30 years, this is reduced 50 percent more. The municipal water expected to drop by more than half (to 21 gal- utility could thus plan on substantially lower

48 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

per-capita water demand for its services — ed (Maddock and which means reduced groundwater pumping, Hines 1995). In either less river water diverted, and less energy and case, it is considerably chemicals expended on water treatment and above the roughly 160 conveyance. Although with this approach total gpcd in Tucson. As in residential water use would fall by less than Las Vegas, extensive half, the difference is made up by the recycling areas of turf grass — of greywater and the capture of rainwater on including numerous site, which help increase the efficiency of public golf courses — water use overall. partially explains the high level. In light of Urban Water Use in Las Vegas, Tucson’s experience, Earth-moving equipment on the floor of MWD’s Eastside Phoenix, and Los Angeles Phoenix is evaluating Reservoir Project. Consisting of three dams, the 800,000 acre- foot capacity storage facility is scheduled for completion in 1999 The potential for water savings in the other the possibility of insti- at a cost of $1.9 billion. (Photo by J. Morrison) major cities supplied in part by Colorado River tuting a new water water should be greater than in Tucson, rate structure. The because each has a substantially higher level of city is encouraging xeriscaping, the per-capita water use. Part of the explanation of use of low-volume plumbing fixtures these differences lies in the different types of (which will be automatic in new commercial, industrial, and public activities in construction as a result of the federal each city. It can be argued, however, that in efficiency standards), and wastewater water-scarce dry climates, economic activity reuse. All new recreational lakes will will have to conform to water realities along be required to use treated wastewater. with residential demands. With such measures, per-capita demand Las Vegas, which gets approximately 80 per- for municipal water cent of its water supply from the Colorado supplies is projected River, has an extremely high per-capita use of to fall from 320 gpcd 360 gpcd (Maddock and Hines 1995). This is in to 260 gpcd — a 19 part attributable to the large tourist population, percent drop, but still but also to extensive use of thirsty turf grass in a very high level. residential and recreational landscaping and to While most of the heavy commercial use. The Las Vegas Valley Colorado river water Water District has estimated that water sup- received by California plies could fall short of demands by 2010, even goes to irrigated with a 10 percent reduction in per-capita agriculture in the demand through conservation. Their current southeastern part of conservation program, which includes a the state, the revised inverted water rate structure, promo- Metropolitan Water tion of xeriscaping, and low-flow plumbing District of Southern ordinances for new development (which would California (MWD) has be required by federal standards as well), is priority rights to aimed at reducing per-capita demand up to 20 about 550,000 acre- percent (Maddock and Hines 1995). Even if feet per year. MWD this goal is achieved, urban water use would has the physical capa- average 288 gpcd, still a very high level. And bility of diverting a with population in the Las Vegas area projected substantially larger to increase by 115 percent by 2030, total urban amount from the water use would rise dramatically. Colorado, but actual Water use in Phoenix is reported to be about diversions will 230 gpcd, although some researchers estimate it depend on the hydro- Construction equipment parked at the center of what will soon to be closer to 320 gpcd if water from the Salt logic conditions in the be the I .7-mile long West Dam of the Eastside Project. River Project used for urban irrigation is includ- (Photo by J. Morrison)

49 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

basin and the needs and rights of other users. irrigated farmland to eliminate groundwater MWD’s service area had 15.7 million people in overdraft and to free up water for delta restora- 1994 — about 50 percent of California’s entire tion. They further attempt to hold total urban population. Total water use in 1990 was 4.0 use constant, even in the face of population million acre-feet, declining to 3.2 maf in 1994 growth, by substantial water savings in the because of recession, drought-induced efficien- commercial and industrial sector and large cy improvements, and other factors. Of the 3.2 reductions in per-capita residential water use. maf used in 1994, 91 percent went to meet We base our estimates of potential water savings municipal and industrial uses and the remain- on reductions actually demonstrated with exist- der went to local agricultural uses. Per-capita ing technologies and policies. municipal and industrial water use in 1990 was In the urban sector, we estimate that 214 gpcd, dropping to 165 gpcd in 1994 (MWD commercial/industrial demand could be 1995). The traditional projections of water reduced by 20-40 percent. In the residential demand estimate that municipal and industrial sector, we considered the case of Tucson, water use will increase 31 percent between Arizona, a city already widely recognized for 1994 and 2010 because of increases in popula- its conservation achievements, and thus one tion, household income, urbanization in hot, in which the remaining conservation potential arid parts of the basin, higher industrial pro- might be somewhat less than in other western duction, and decreasing household size. cities. Virtually everywhere, including Tucson, A wide range of water conservation pro- indoor residential water use per capita will grams have been discussed, and many imple- decline automatically because of the water mented, in the MWD service area. Official esti- efficiency standards now in force nationwide mates of per-capita urban water use with antic- that require installation of water-efficient ipated conservation programs are about 190 plumbing fixtures in all new construction gpcd for 2010. Without these conservation pro- and major remodeling. As long as the federal grams, MWD estimates urban water use would law remains intact, these savings will occur rise to over 225 gpcd (MWD 1995). Among the automatically, and water planners should major components of their program are imple- take them into account in making their mentation of “Best Management Practices” — a demand projections. Substantial additional set of urban conservation tools established at savings are possible through native landscap- the state level, toilet retrofit programs, efficient ing, greywater recycling, and more aggressive showerhead distribution programs, industrial measures such as the directed use of rainwater and commercial audit programs, and educa- through capture and storage in cisterns. All tional activities. Other efforts involve ground- in all, these measures could reduce per-capita water recharge and conjunctive use activities municipal water demand by 30-50 percent. and a range of water reclamation projects to In our scenario, we attempt to achieve increase the proportion of water reused by all ecologically stable water use through adjust- sectors. Some analysts believe that more ments in irrigated agriculture and a goal of aggressive programs for improving water effi- no net growth in urban water use. This is only ciency and increasing water recycling and one of many possible scenarios. Likewise, the reuse could hold per-capita water use at well water-use reductions needed to achieve these below official projections (Gleick et al. 1995). goals will depend on factors specific to each region or city. Less severe cuts in per-capita Conclusion urban use might be necessary, for example, Our illustrative scenarios for agriculture in if population growth were to slow or come to Arizona and urban use in Tucson along with a halt sooner than expected. ongoing and possible programs in other lower basin regions suggest a range of strategies for achieving more sustainable patterns of water use in the lower Colorado. They rely on improvements in irrigation efficiency, changes in the crop mix, and the retiring of some

50 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

D. STRATEGIES FOR water agencies. Conservation and efficiency are not ends STRETCHING THE Pricing structures but means. They are means of achieving that promote water more sustainable patterns of water use, RESOURCE: POLICY conservation, howev- as well as ways to “buy time” until a TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE er, are becoming societal consensus can be reached WATER USE increasingly preva- about which water uses should be met The transition to sustainable water manage- lent. With demand for and what policies should be implemented. ment will not occur overnight. It will take time urban water continu- to put into place the fora where dialog can ing to outpace supply, urban water agencies begin and to negotiate and prioritize the com- face a new reality where providing a reliable, peting values of water in a democratic way. affordable service will depend as much on how Replacing wasteful technologies with efficient they manage demand as on how they manage ones will occur incrementally but the process supply. Innovative ways to price water services needs to be hastened. It is important to to encourage more efficient use, and adoption remember, however, that conservation and of cost-effective conservation, efficiency, reuse, efficiency are not ends but means. They are and recycling measures will all be essential to means of achieving more sustainable patterns sustainably meeting future needs. of water use, as well as ways to “buy time” Increasing Block Rate Structures until a societal consensus can be reached about which water uses should be met and An increasingly popular choice with utilities, what policies should be implemented. the increasing block rate structure establishes Below we describe a set of strategies that can two or more rate blocks and then charges high- be combined to reach the sustainability goals er unit prices for each successively higher described above and produce a sustainable usage block. Thus, customers pay more per water future. unit for higher levels of use (see Figure 8). 1. Pricing Incentives Tiered Pricing of Irrigation Water Central to the effort to revamp the way Conservation pricing has also proven to be a Colorado River stakeholders manage their successful tool in the agricultural sector. The water resources will be pricing policies that experience of several districts on the west side reflect the true costs of water to particular of California’s San Joaquin Valley shows the users at particular times of use. Historically, tremendous flexibility of agriculture to adapt to water prices have not reflected the full eco- changing conditions. Through district-level nomic, social, and environment costs of pro- conservation programs and tiered pricing, San viding it to users. Recent empirical research Joaquin Valley west-side farmers increased irri- has repeatedly shown that rates influence gation efficiency and reduced drainage water demand for water (Curry 1994, Mitchell and in an effort to reduce some of the severe Hanemann 1994, MWD 1995, Dziegielewski et drainage problems there. al. 1991; Black and Veatch 1995). The measure One west-side district that participated in of this relationship between the price of water this effort, the Broadview Water District, is a and its use is called the price elasticity of small district of just over 4,000 hectares (10,000 demand, which gauges the expected response acres), which grows primarily cotton, melons, in demand given a change in price. The water wheat, alfalfa seed, and tomatoes. The District utility industry has for a long time implicitly was faced with the problem of having to assumed that the price elasticity of demand for reduce the volume of contaminated drainage water by residential customers is zero, i.e., water flowing into the San Joaquin River, and higher prices have no effect on quantities in 1988, implemented a tiered pricing rate demanded. This philosophy has typically mani- structure. An increasing block rate for water fested itself in the form of uniform pricing use was seen as one way to help achieve (single block rates), which is still offered by a drainage reductions and a program to imple- significant percentage of western state retail ment such a structure was developed. The rate

51 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Figure 8 Urban Water Rate Structures

Constant Block Rate Decreasing Block Rate with Service Charge with Service Charge

Cost Cost $/Unit $/Unit

Quantity Used Quantity Used Plus Monthly Service Charge Plus Monthly Service Charge

Increasing Seasonal Block Rate with Minimum Allowance On Increasing Block Rate Peak with Minimum Allowance

Off Cost Cost Peak $/Unit $/Unit

Quantity Used Quantity Used Plus Monthly Service Charge Plus Monthly Service Charge for Minimum Amount for Minimum Amount

Source: Modified from DWR 1994a.

was set at $16 per acre-foot for the first 90 per- these examples do point to promising areas for cent of the 1986 to 1988 applied water average adapting to water cutbacks. The distinction and $40 per acre-foot for any additional water. between savings in applied water and savings Accounting for water was fairly accurate in consumed water should be kept clear. because of careful monitoring. Increased irrigation efficiency can lower By 1991, only seven of 47 fields exceeded applied water requirements, but actual water the tier levels. The district average applied consumed may not change unless the crop water decreased 19 percent, from 2.81 acre- evapotranspiration requirements change by feet/acre for 1986-88 to 2.27 acre-feet/acre in either growing different crops or fallowing land. 1991. During this same period melons, wheat, Summer Surcharge Structures and alfalfa seed crop production decreased, but The summer surcharge structure charges high- there was an increase in tomatoes harvested er prices for water used in summer. These (MacDougall et al. 1992). Drainage was both might be higher rates overall during the sum- reduced substantially and smoothed out over mer, or higher rates for the portion of water the season. The drainage volume decreased use that exceeds average winter water use. For from an average of 3,521 af per year over 1986- example, in 1993, Tucson decided to convert 88 to 2,665 in 1990; salt discharges decreased from an increasing block rate structure to a from 26,000 tons to under 22,000; and boron summer surcharge rate structure. A study for decreased from 30.3 tons to 26.2 tons Tucson had found that the summer surcharge (Wichelns and Cone 1992). plan was more effective than the inverted While local experiences cannot easily be block structure in encouraging conservation, generalized to the entire Colorado River basin, particularly in summer when the city faces its

52 Moving Toward A Sustainable River Basin

high and costly-to-meet peak water demand. In the urban sector, a growing number of The evaluation also found the summer sur- utilities offer rebates to customers who install charge structure to be more equitable, since it low-flush toilets. New York City, Santa Monica, penalized heavy use of water outdoors for and Denver are among the urban water lawns and swimming pools, which is clearly providers that have offered rebates to cus- discretionary, more than heavy use of water tomers purchasing low-volume toilet rebates. indoors due to large family size, which is less The Metropolitan Water District of Southern discretionary (Peart et al. 1993). California (MWD) pays its member agencies Thus a single family residence now has a $152 for each acre-foot of water they save, $5.00 monthly charge, which includes use of including through toilet replacement programs 300 cubic feet (3 Ccf or 2,244 gallons) of water. (M. Puffer, MWD, personal communication, The basic commodity charge for water used 1992). As of mid-1995, MWD’s rebate incentive over this amount in single family and duplex- programs resulted in the retrofit of 890,000 triplex residences is $1.55/Ccf ($2.07/1,000 gal- ultra low-flush toilets and over 3 million lons or $675/af). For all water used during the low-flow showerheads, representing annual summer months (May-October) in excess of water savings of more than 44,000 af/year the average volume of water used during the (MWD 1995). winter period (November-April), a surcharge of 3. Water Depletion Taxes $0.95 is added to the basic charge. A second tier surcharge of $0.25 is added on for any One of many “green” taxes designed to raise water use in summer that exceeds 150% of the government revenue while discouraging pollu- average usage during the winter period. Thus, tion and inefficient resource consumption, a if a household’s summer water use rises higher water depletion tax might be particularly than 2.5 times its winter use, it will pay applicable to the overpumping of groundwater $2.75/Ccf ($3.68/1,000 gallons or $1,199/af) or to extractions from fossil aquifers. The (Peart et al 1993). Arizona Department of Water Resources One potential disadvantage of this type of (ADWR), for example, maintains the authority rate structure is that some households may to impose fines on water users who overpump have a disincentive to conserve water indoors water supplies. In 1994, the ADWR fined a during the winter months, because their aver- Pima County water purveyor for overdrafting age winter use becomes the basis for determin- groundwater but waived the fine after the coming what is excessive (and thus subject to the pany agreed to make improvements surcharges) in the summer. If implementation (Waterweek 1996). Currently, a Tucson-area of this rate structure is accompanied by water- water provider, the Rancho Vistoso Water efficiency standards for indoor plumbing fix- Company, is being fined $25,000 by the ADWR tures (as now required in new construction) for exceeding groundwater pumping limits and retrofitting of older fixtures, such a prob- (Waterweek 1996). lem may not prove serious. 4. Linking Land Development to 2. Low-Interest Loans and Rebates Water Supplies for Conservation Investments Arizona’s 1980 Groundwater Management Low-interest loans make it more attractive eco- Code included provisions prohibiting new nomically for water users to invest in conserva- urban development in areas of severe overdraft tion and more efficient technologies. The High unless a long-term “assured water supply” Plains Water District of western Texas, where could be demonstrated. Developers within depletion of the Ogallala aquifer continues, overdrafted areas, known as Active offers irrigators low-interest loans for the pur- Management Areas (AMAs), are required by chase of equipment to improve irrigation effi- the Code to demonstrate to ADWR that land for ciency, such as LEPA, surge valves, drip sys- sale or lease has water of sufficient quantity tems, and underground pipelines. As of October and quality to sustain the proposed develop- 1995, cumulative water savings from the pro- ment for 100 years. In order to allow for con- gram totalled nearly 156,000 af (Postel 1996). tinued economic growth in these regions with-

53 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

out worsening the overdraft situation, a resulted in 185,000 acre-feet of water being number of experimental institutions were conserved and stored in Lake Mead for created in the early 1990s. In 1991, the use by MWD before the year 2000. In the Arizona state legislature created a Land Fallowing Program, 63 farmers agreed Groundwater Replenishment District in to fallow 8,100 hectares (20,000 acres) of irri- the Phoenix AMA to purchase and sell gated farmland for two years in exchange water rights in an attempt to obtain additional for monetary compensation (MWD 1995, water supplies for urban areas. In this pro- Loh and Steding 1996). gram, groundwater pumping credits could be In a separate agreement in 1989, MWD purchased from the Replenishment District entered into an agreement with the Imperial by a developer needing to prove a 100-year Irrigation District (IID), another agricultural assured water supply. The Replenishment water district located to the east of Los District, in turn, purchases water from outside Angeles. In this agreement, MWD pledged to the region, such as from the Central Arizona fund the direct and indirect costs of certain Project, recharging groundwater aquifers in conservation projects within IID’s boundaries, the region. in exchange for the water that was “saved” 5. Efficiency Standards and through such measures. Measures pursued under the MWD/IID Water Conservation Regulations Program (Conservation Program) included lin- Since the late 1980s, a number of local, state, ing existing canals with concrete, constructing and national governments have adopted water local reservoirs and spill interceptor canals, efficiency standards for household plumbing installing nonleak gates and automation equip- fixtures. In the United States, legislation passed ment, and instituting on-farm, water-use man- in late 1992 requires manufacturers of residen- agement practices (MWD 1995). In return, tial toilets, faucets, and showerheads to meet MWD was able to use an estimated 75,000 af specified standards of efficiency as of January of IID’s Colorado River entitlement in 1995. 1994. As a result of these standards, the aver- Water transfers in Arizona have mostly age U.S. resident’s use of water from these come in the form of “water farming,” where fixtures will decline by more than 50 percent rural land is purchased by cities solely for its within 30 years—from an estimated 46 gpcd attached water rights (a discussion of water now to about 21 gpcd (Vickers 1993). Although farming is in section 1. Reducing Agricultural efficiency standards have so far mainly been Water Use). Although not a true water transfer, applied to household fixtures, they offer poten- urban water purveyors in southern Nevada tial for water savings in agriculture, industry, have studied schemes where groundwater and other municipal uses—including outdoor would be pumped and transported to cities use— as well. The same 1992 law, the National from rural areas located to the north and west Energy Policy Act, puts efficiency standards in of the Las Vegas area. Due to severe opposition place for commercial fixtures in 1997. from rural communities and environmental groups in the region, and also due to high 6. Water Transfers economic costs, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has opted to put the Cooperative Voluntary water transfers are another mecha- Water Project, as it is known, on hold nism for moving water from low-valued uses (SNWA 1996). While intrastate water transfers to higher-valued uses. Within the last decade, have been completed successfully in the last numerous irrigation districts of the lower basin ten years, transfers between lower basin states have entered into transfer agreements with have proven more problematic. A more urban areas within their state. Metropolitan in-depth discussion of interstate water transfers Water District of Southern California (MWD), is included in the following chapter. for example, has engaged in two significant water transfers with irrigation districts in its region. The Palo Verde Test Land Fallowing Program, implemented from 1992 to 1994,

54 Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

VI. Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

hile strategies for more efficient to forestall development projects and to modify water use will surely provide a dam operations. River rafters and other recre- means of buying time for the ational users such as sports fishermen have Wfuture, the transition to a sustain- also applied pressure to have their interests able river basin will entail a complete rethink- represented. These new interests have become ing of how water in the basin is managed. As legitimate contenders for the use of the river’s growing water demands on the lower Colorado water, but hold no explicit, quantified rights to basin approach the legal limits of the region, the waters of the Colorado under its current a scramble to protect rights for future use has management regime. ensued. The looming threat of regular water Laws such as the Existing institutions will have to be shortages for certain parties has spurred calls Endangered Species reformed and new ones created in for substantial reforms in the way the river is Act (ESA) and order to deal with the set of challenges managed. Many interests are beginning to rec- National confronting the river’s water users. ognize that current river management, the way Environmental Policy During this transition period, it is in which water use is regulated, and the insti- Act (NEPA) restrict imperative that all the stakeholders of tutions that govern the basin are not adequate and influence river the river participate in the creation and to meet the challenges of the future. There is operations, but only in modification of these institutions. a growing feeling that existing institutions will a fragmented way. As have to be reformed and new ones created in a result, attempts to rescue imperiled species order to deal with the set of challenges con- have been piecemeal. Only recently have fronting the river’s water users. During this agencies begun looking into comprehensive transition period, it is imperative that all the strategies for ecosystem recovery. The fact that stakeholders of the river participate in the cre- the Lower Colorado River Ecoregion (LCRE) ation and modification of these institutions. currently supports 24 federally-listed endangered and threatened species, one proposed for A. RIVER MANAGEMENT listing, four candidate species, and 67 species “at risk” of being listed (F&WS 1995a) shows AND ENVIRONMENTAL that current and past river management have VALUES adversely affected ecosystem health. While At its most fundamental level, a rethinking of minimum flow requirements currently exist the river’s management is necessary not only for a handful of reaches in the upper Colorado because the river is grossly “over-apportioned” basin, these are not sufficient to meet specific in terms of consumptive uses, but also because ecosystem needs. It is also apparent that the many values for water, such as fisheries protec- level of flows reaching the Colorado delta is tion and other ecological values, are not explic- insufficient to maintain a healthy environment itly recognized in the current approach. River there. management has begun to move in this direc- When the waters of the river were divided tion as evidenced by the relatively recent con- over 70 years ago, no water was explicitly dedi- sideration of environmental values, long cated to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems ignored during policy discussions and early — indeed, ensuring ecosystem health was not decisions over water allocations. a concept given much consideration. One Environmental interest groups are now using could argue that instream flows were account- powerful federal environmental legislation, ed for by the 1922 Compact signatories when such as the Endangered Species Act, as a tool they apportioned only 15 maf of a river they

55 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

believed to have an annual average flow of 18 the challenge will be to find ways of freeing up maf. Unfortunately, that 3 maf cushion was the water to meet those needs. based on inaccurate In an already over-apportioned system with assumptions about the continually increasing human demands, this If the institutions that are being put in long-term average will not be easy. However, if the institutions place now for the long-term management flow of the river, as that are being put in place now for the long- of the river do not address the issue described earlier in term management of the river do not address of water for environmental values, Section 2. Despite the the issue of water for environmental values, it it will be nearly impossible to do so fact that the river’s will be nearly impossible to do so in thirty in thirty years when scarcity will be flows were grossly years when scarcity will be a more intractable a more intractable issue. overestimated, subse- issue. It will be a tremendous failure if the quent laws and needs of aquatic ecosystems are not explicitly decrees have been based upon the original addressed in this transitory period in the Compact apportionments. river’s management when institutions are Up until the present, any “minimum flow being restructured to meet future challenges. requirements” have been met with unused While a common “vision” of the river’s envi- entitlements. In this sense, the environment is ronmental future is paramount for a transition living off of “borrowed” water. As all the legally to a sustainable basin, reaching consensus apportioned water for human uses is eventual- among basin interests is a major challenge. ly utilized by basin states, there is great uncer- This is mainly due to a number of unresolved tainty as to what will happen to the ecosys- political, institutional, and legal controversies tems. Unless a mechanism can be established facing the basin. The threat of inadequate that provides water for the environment, water water supplies to meet growing needs has led will surely be taken from the most junior water to legal battles and political tension as states rights holders in order to meet ESA and NEPA and water users work to secure an increasingly requirements as they currently exist. scarce resource. Taken together, the summa- Stakeholders on the lower basin such as MWD tion of conflicts represents a political, legal, and CAWCD stand to be adversely affected by and institutional quagmire that constrains this scenario. Such a scenario could also progress toward sustainable river management. adversely affect upper basin interests if Since little water will be reallocated toward instream flows mandated by ESA for the lower aquatic ecosystems until a regional solution is basin prohibit the upper basin from fully utiliz- developed that ensures that the basic human ing its basic entitlement. and economic needs of each state will be met, There is still time to develop a strategy for a way around the “logjam” must be found. freeing up water for aquatic ecosystems. Any Below we discuss the major issues that must be environmentally sustainable regional solution addressed and resolved in order to move will have to address the need for additional toward sustainable river management. water to prevent species extinction and habitat protection. The first step to incorporating B. UNSETTLED INDIAN ecosystem values into a comprehensive manage- TRIBES WATER RIGHTS ment plan will be to reach consensus on what A viable “regional solution” must include reso- the river should look like in twenty or a hundred lution of a host of Indian tribes water issues. years, with specific information about the water While Indian tribes are currently in the requirements of particular environmental val- process of having previously unrecognized ues. Decisions will have to be made about which water rights granted and quantified, one of the portions of the basin can, or should, be restored most significant problems for all of the stake- and maintained at what economic and social holders of the Colorado River is the complicat- cost. These decisions will have to be agreed ed nature of the quantification process. While upon by a reasonable majority of stakeholders in almost all parties agree that Indian tribes are the basin. Once an agreed-upon “vision” is estab- entitled to some portion of the river’s water, lished and aquatic ecosystem needs quantified, there has been considerable disagreement over

56 Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

both the quantity of water and the manner in which control should be balanced between the Table 23 federal government and the Indian tribes Indian Tribes of the Lower Colorado River Basin themselves. Resolution of these issues will rely on both the future legal definition of Indian Native American Reservation State water entitlements and the rules that will be Las Vegas Colony Nevada put in place that govern Indian water use once Moapa Nevada rights are established. Indian water issues Kaibab Arizona must, therefore, be resolved as a fundamental Hopi Arizona part of any long-term management strategy for Navajo Arizona the Colorado River basin. Table 23 depicts the Hualapai Arizona Indian tribes of the lower Colorado River basin. Havasupai Arizona To understand the water-related issues of Colorado River Arizona/California the Indian tribes of the Colorado River basin, it Cocopa Arizona is necessary to look at the historical relation- Tohono O’odham Arizona ship between Indian tribes and the federal gov- San Xavier Arizona ernment of the United States. Federal policy Gila Bend Arizona towards Indian tribes has shifted from treating Maricopa Arizona tribes as foreign nations, to relocating, extermi- Gila River Arizona nating, and assimilating them, to the current Yavapai Arizona policy of recognizing tribes as sovereign and Salt River Arizona encouraging tribal self-determination Fort McDowell Arizona (Dongoske 1996). Throughout the various Papago Arizona changes in policy, the concept of the federal Pascua Yaqui Arizona government’s “trust responsibility” for the San Carlos Arizona Indian tribes has been an integral component Fort Apache Arizona of the relationship. The trust responsibility is Payson Community Arizona the basis of much of today’s Indian/federal Camp Verde Arizona arrangement and is rooted in the treaty-mak- Zuni New Mexico/Arizona ing era where the federal government Fort Mohave California promised to establish and protect permanent homelands in exchange for Indian land Chemehuevi California (Dongoske 1996). Fort Yuma California Agencies within the Department of the Interior, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs 1989 as cited in Dongoske 1996. now work to integrate Indian tribes’ needs into long-term planning efforts. Among other things, this includes integrating Indian needs Therefore, any Colorado River management with state, local, and private interests in a plan developed with the Bureau’s participation region. The Bureau of Reclamation interprets will have to address the water needs and rights its trust responsibility in terms of Indian tribe of Indian tribes in the basin. trust assets which are defined as: “[A]nything 1. Water Rights owned that has monetary value. The asset It is a federal policy objective to fulfill the need not be owned outright, but could be some promise of permanent tribal homelands by other type of property interest, such as a lease honoring and protecting the reserved water or a right to use something. Assets can be real rights of Indian tribes. However, the unique property, physical assets, or intangible proper- relationship between the federal government ty rights” (USBR 1994 as cited in Dongoske and Indian tribes has clouded the definition of 1996). The trust asset of paramount impor- those water rights. At the heart of the issue is tance to Indian tribes in the Colorado River that there are two systems of law that govern basin is their right to the river’s water. water rights in the west — state and federal.

57 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

State water rights throughout the western U.S. consumptive uses will come out of existing have historically been based on the prior appro- apportionments. It is for this reason that the priation doctrine, which is predicated on the settling of Indian water claims has been an concept of “first in time, first in right.” In issue of great interest and controversy through- essence, a senior and superior right is estab- out the Colorado basin. Given the lack of cer- lished once a user diverts and puts to benefi- tainty of future rights for many non-Indian cial use the water of a region. Once this interests, long-term planning has been diffi- occurs, an appropriation date is set giving that cult. Furthermore, very few water rights hold- user more senior rights than the next person to ers will be willing to discuss water realloca- utilize the water. tions for environmental purposes until they Indian water rights, on the other hand, have are more certain of their future Colorado River largely been established through the federal water entitlements. The uncertainty associated court system. They are largely based on feder- with outstanding Indian water claims serves as al courts’ interpretations of historic treaties, an obstacle to long-term planning. All Indian Executive Orders, and other agreements claims, therefore, will have to be settled before between Indian tribes and federal agencies any durable and comprehensive regional solu- (Dongoske 1996). These types of federal tion can be negotiated and implemented. reserved rights, known as Winters rights, are based upon the 1908 Supreme Court case 2. Water Settlements Winters v. United States. This precedent setting That water is governed by two independent case embodied the idea that sufficient water sets of law — state appropriative rights and fed- was implicitly reserved for the purposes of the eral reserved rights — has made settling Indian reservation at the time that each reservation water claims difficult. While the Supreme was established, and that this was a reserved Court’s 1908 Winters Decision was a landmark right whether or not the water was actually legal interpretation of federal obligations to put to use. protect the water interests of Indian tribes, Winters rights are recognized as having it did not make any attempt to quantify those priority dates coinciding with the date the rights. Due to the considerable economic and reservations were established, thus providing social repercussions of each settlement, the a means to integrate federally reserved rights quantification process today has become with appropriative rights recognized under extremely controversial, costly, and time- state law (Checchio and Colby 1993). In most consuming. cases, these rights are senior to non-Indian Difficulty in reaching settlements is partially rights because most reservations were estab- rooted in the 1963 Supreme Court Arizona v. lished prior to extensive non-Indian settlement California decision, where “practicably irrigable of the western states. Therefore, the increasing acreage” (PIA) was adopted by the Court as the likelihood of these Indian rights being exer- criterion to be used when attempting to quanti- cised in the near future lends uncertainty to fy Indian claims for five Indian tribes in the most current stakeholder uses perfected under lower basin. While this method of quantifica- state law. By some calculations, unquantified tion provided relatively generous settlements Indian claims in Arizona alone could be as for these five Colorado River Indian tribes of high as 3.1 million acre-feet per year — an the lower basin, more recent stricter interpre- amount exceeding the average annual surface tations of the PIA standard have curtailed the flow of the state and almost half of the state’s allowable amount of water for Indian tribes 1990 total water demand (Eden and Wallace (Burton 1991). Beginning in the early 1980s, 1992). Most of this water is currently being economic principles such as cost-benefit analy- used in Arizona by non-Indian interests who ses were instituted to determine which lands will be forced to curtail use once Indian tribes were to be considered “practicably irrigable.” begin utilizing the water. Thus the PIA standard implicitly evolved to If and when tribes are able to fully exercise mean economically feasible using present their rights to Colorado River water, these new technology. Applying the more liberal interpre-

58 Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

tation of the PIA standard used by the Court in state law, water transfers have only been 1963 to all remaining unsettled Indian water allowed for water that has a history of being claims would most likely yield significantly put to beneficial use and then is conserved due larger water settlements for Indian tribes than to “extraordinary” measures (such as land fal- they are likely to get today. lowing, improvements in irrigation efficiency, Some have questioned if it is in the best concrete lining of canals, etc.). A significant interests of the Indian tribes to quantify their percentage of Indian water rights has not yet claims by pursuing water rights settlements. been put to beneficial use largely due to a lack This idea is based on the concept that, in legal of capital to develop the supply. In fact, most terms, Winters rights include future needs and recent water rights settlements have been are not lost even if not exercised. Realistically, packaged with funding — usually federal — for however, if tribes wait to quantify their rights, water development and distribution. If Indian their ultimate apportionment will most likely tribes are restricted from marketing water that get smaller. Courts will find it more and more has not been historically used, then the only difficult to reallocate water toward Indians method to reap the economic benefits of the tribes as non-Indian users become increasingly water is to develop their entitlements and irri- reliant on available water supplies. An example gate more land. In some instances, this could of this is already evident in the fact that tribes have certain negative repercussions. today are being held to different and more rig- Most of the irrigable land on Indian reserva- orous PIA standards than were applied when tions in the region is not suitable for growing federal projects serving non-Indian agricultural high-value crops (McGuire et al. 1993). water user were built decades ago (Checchio Therefore, a policy requiring historical use of and Colby 1993). water in order to enable marketing off-reservation will translate into removing water from an 3. Marketing Indian Tribes Water already over-allocated system for irrigation on Currently, only a small portion of already marginal lands. It is questionable whether this quantified tribal water rights is being utilized is the most efficient use of water in a water- by Indian tribes. While it is clear that Indian scarce region such as the Colorado River basin. tribes possess legal rights to considerably more Furthermore, even if they were attainable, water, a large percent has not been “developed” large capital outlays to develop water supplies mostly for lack of financial resources. It is an that are, in turn, marketed off-reservation are a open question as to what purposes this water questionable use of finances. With this in will eventually serve. Some Indian tribes have mind, it may be advantageous to allow the expressed an interest in leasing a portion of marketing of water that has no history of bene- their entitlements off-reservation to non-Indian ficial use. These issues should be considered water users. Until recently, it has generally when determining what is permissible in been understood that federal laws have limited Indian water marketing. off-reservation water marketing (Water In sum, one of the most complex and diffi- Strategist 1994). However, the Bureau of cult management issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation in their 1994 Draft Regulations Reclamation is how to meet its trust responsi- modified the federal position when it recog- bility of ensuring that Indian water rights are nized the rights of Colorado River Indian tribes protected and fairly quantified while at the to market water off-reservation. The Bureau’s same time meeting other needs in an over- preliminary conclusion was “that in the context apportioned system. Given the potential to of the lower basin, it is permissible, without reshuffle the hierarchy of water rights in the additional authority from Congress, to allow for basin, Indian water rights settlements are an the use of Indian reserved right water off the important issue for all basin interests. reservations” (USBR 1994a). Defining, quantifying, and integrating Indian However, there is a “Catch 22” associated water rights should be a top priority for the with the issue of off-reservation marketing of Bureau and other stakeholders as a first step Indian reserved water rights. Typically, under toward a comprehensive management strategy

59 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

for the basin. It is essential that Indian tribes fers of water as strategies to redistribute water be included early and participate continuously towards its highest-utility use. Recognizing that in such long-term planning efforts. the management practices of the river needed to be modified to more efficiently utilize the waters of the lower basin, the Bureau of C. NEW RIVER MANAGEMENT Reclamation (Bureau) in 1994 released a draft STRATEGIES AND THE document entitled Regulations for Administering CURRENT POLITICAL Entitlements to Colorado River Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin (Draft Regulations), STANDOFF which provided a framework for new manage- As mentioned earlier, a long-term management ment strategies for the region. The Draft strategy for the river is contingent upon reach- Regulations set into motion a series of stake- ing agreement on what ecosystem functions holder discussions — and eventually controver- and values are to be protected. Arriving sies — about how to revamp river management at a consensus on this and other issues needs to to best meet future needs. be done democratically and with full involve- Seen as overly ambitious by the states of the ment from all basin stakeholders. Realistically, lower basin, time was requested to develop a however, freeing up lower basin consensus on a “regional solution” One goal of a “regional solution” water for environmen- that would satisfy the water needs of each will be to develop a consensus on innova- tal purposes will only state. In mid-1994, it was agreed that a Lower tive approaches to river management that be possible if it does Basin Technical Committee (Technical will simultaneously allow for habitat not come at the Committee) be established to discuss water recovery and health while also meeting expense of a particu- issues pertaining to the lower basin. At the existing and future human demands. lar stakeholder’s request of the Seven Colorado River Basin needs. One goal of a States and Ten Tribes Partnership (7/10 “regional solution” will be to develop a consen- Partnership), the 11-member Technical sus on innovative approaches to river manage- Committee 9 was expanded to include the five ment that will simultaneously allow for habitat Indian tribes of the lower Colorado basin. recovery and health while also meeting existing While considerable progress was made during and future human demands. What makes this eight months of negotiations, talks between the task so complicated, however, is that the best states dissolved when positions hardened on interests and needs of the lower basin states issues such as water banking and reservoir are, in some cases, diametrically opposed. The operations and Arizona dropped out of the dis- roadblock presented by conflicting stakeholder cussions. Attempts to continue the negotiations needs must be addressed before water has a failed shortly after and the dissolution of the chance of being reallocated for environmental Lower Basin Technical Committee now leaves restoration and maintenance. the lower basin at a political standstill. While Faced with the problem of long-term informal talks on matters of the Colorado have demands potentially exceeding legally avail- continued between certain lower basin princi- able supplies, water users and officials began pals, it is uncertain when official talks between rethinking management strategies for the river the lower basin states will resume. In all likeli- in the early 1990s. Particular attention was hood, progress toward consensus will be slow given to shifting water supplies toward more given that the best interests of the three lower efficient and productive uses. The federal gov- basin states are, in some cases, directly con- ernment, through the Bureau of Reclamation, flicting. The following discussion describes the began formally promoting conservation, major issues of contention. improved management, and voluntary trans-

9 The following agencies were represented at the first meeting: Arizona Department of Water Resources (two representatives), Wellton Mohawk Irrigation District, Colorado River Board of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Imperial Irrigation District, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Bureau of Reclamation (2 representatives), Central Arizona Water Conservation District. No public interest groups or Indian tribes were present at the first meetings.

60 Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

1. Re-operation of the Colorado Glen Canyon Dam on January 1 for flood con- River Reservoirs System trol, and being within 0.5 maf of full capacity (~27 maf for Lake Powell) by July 1 to achieve Some lower basin interests have argued that maximum storage for water supply and the Colorado River Reservoirs System (CRRS), hydropower production during the summer. the network of storage facilities on the main- Urban water purveyors in California and stem of the Colorado, is not currently operated recently Nevada have been proponents of in the most efficient manner. More water can revamping the operation of Lake Mead to allow be utilized, it is argued, without any significant for increased beneficial use of the river’s water. threat to water users in water-short years. The states have argued that the Bureau’s priori- Determinations for how the river is currently ty of ensuring certainty of supplying each managed are based upon the Criteria for state’s basic apportionment has come at the Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado expense of maximizing beneficial uses from River Reservoirs (Operating Criteria) issued in the river system. Heavily affected by the 1970. The Operating Criteria pursuant to the Secretary’s determination of “surplus” or Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 “shortage” conditions,10 California, in 1991, requires the Department of the Interior to pre- requested the establishment of “specific para- pare an annual plan of operation for the CRRS. meters” to help ensure that “determinations Included in the yearly plan are determinations have a sound technical basis and that there is a as to how much water will be left in the reser- balancing of the system wide benefits and voir system, the amount of water delivered to risks” (State of California 1991). Partially due to Mexico, the quantity of water to be delivered to pressure from the states, the Bureau is now in lower basin users for consumptive beneficial the process of developing new definitions of uses (based on a declaration of the river’s surplus and shortage. “normal,” “surplus,” or “shortage” condition), The idea of drawing down reservoir levels and the magnitude of lower basin users unused to allow increased human use, however, is not apportionments that may be used to satisfy the without critics. Arizona has adamantly resisted needs of other lower basin users. The the notion of cutting into emergency storage Department of the Interior is directed by law reserves, since the Central Arizona Project’s to review the Operating Criteria for the CRRS (CAP) water entitlements are among the most every five years, but no changes have been junior water rights in the lower basin. Given made to them since they were written in 1970. CAP’s low priority rights, the likelihood of The criteria used by the Bureau in deter- having supplies reduced in drought years mining how much water to release from the increases if the CRRS is consistently main- Colorado River Reservoirs System are fairly tained at lower storage levels. From a water straightforward. Historically, the Bureau has reliability standpoint, it benefits Arizona water had a conservative approach to CRRS manage- users that rely on CAP supplies to have the ment, allowing in most years only the mini- reservoir system as full as possible. mum water release of 8.23 maf from Lake Modifying CRRS operations to increase Powell as required by the Operating Criteria. human uses has also been met with resistance This 8.23 maf/year amount includes the aver- from the environmental community. Aquatic age minimum flow required by the 1922 ecosystems of the basin, with the exception Compact and the 1944 treaty with Mexico, and of a few reaches in the state of Colorado, is the quantity released unless greater releases currently hold no rights to river water, and are needed to avoid overflow spills (flows that therefore, stand to lose the most during dry bypass the hydroelectric turbines) during the years. With this in mind, the potential negative spring runoff season. The monthly target environmental impacts of a sustained drought releases are geared toward two primary objec- can be averted if reservoirs are kept at higher tives — having 2.4 maf of storage space for levels. Furthermore, as additional water is

10 For the most part, a declaration of “surplus” condition has been determined only when the reservoirs begin encroach- ing on flood control space.

61 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

made available for urban and agricultural con- to add flexibility in water management and sumptive uses as a result of new reservoir also as a powerful potential incentive to foster operation procedures, it makes the task of conservation and more efficient use of water. reallocating water towards the river’s ecosys- Under a banking arrangement, water con- tems increasingly difficult. Until a mechanism served by a lower basin user could be stored in is established that explicitly redirects a portion Lake Mead or possibly Lake Powell for use dur- of the water toward stressed aquatic ecosys- ing dry years. While the federal government tems, increased usage of stored Colorado River and lower basin states have all agreed that the supplies does not represent a net environmen- concept of water banking warrants further dis- tal benefit. This is especially true if equivalent cussion, there is considerable disagreement amounts of water can be made available about what should be allowed. merely by implementing urban and agricultur- As with the increased water utilization al efficiency measures that are not currently schemes promoted by urban water purveyors being practiced. in southern California, some Arizona water The degree to which water is stored in case users look at CRRS water banking with reserva- of drought versus utilized to meet current tion. An increase of “privately owned” water in needs is determined by the size of the “safety the CRRS means less available supplies in cushion” desired by society. While, on one times of drought for CAP water users who see hand, it is not efficient to have the Colorado CRRS banking as an unnecessary infringement River Reservoirs System near capacity while on the future reliability of their entitlements. users are forced to restrict uses, on the other, As an alternative, Arizona interests have pro- it is fundamentally shortsighted and risky to moted “off-river” banking in lower basin tribu- draw down the CRRS to a level where there is taries and groundwater aquifers. Adding to little protection in case of sustained drought. Arizona’s concerns is the fact that Metropolitan Until now, fear of a long-term drought similar Water District (MWD), one of the most vocal to the one that is thought to have driven the advocates of water banking, currently diverts Anasazi out of the basin has historically ani- unused lower basin entitlements, surpassing mated western water law and politics. States California’s basic entitlement on an annual have tried to accommodate unlimited growth basis. The ability of MWD to bank water that is on a limited water budget by providing ample saved due to conservation efforts raises impor- margins of safety against shortages (Ingram et tant questions about whether MWD even has al. 1991). Ultimately, stakeholders of the river title to the water it would bank. and society as a whole should be allowed to 3. Water Transfers and Exchanges decide how large the “comfort zone” should be. An overarching basin authority represented by Water transfers are seen by many as a viable all of the basin’s stakeholders could be an option for directing water toward its most val- appropriate forum to reach an equitable com- ued use. The federal government, through the promise that maximizes beneficial use while Bureau of Reclamation, endorsed the idea of ensuring an adequate degree of reliability to voluntary water transfers in their 1994 Draft meet water demands in times of drought. A Regulations. While it is agreed that voluntary detailed discussion of the establishment of an transfers of water will be a part of the lower overarching basin authority is included in the basin’s future, there is little consensus as to chapter on Recommendations. what the water markets will look like. It is still unclear whether transfers will be conducted 2. Water Banking between individual water users or if markets A related issue to the one of reforming dam will be centralized and managed through state operating procedures for additional water use banks. Several Indian tribes of the lower basin is the concept of water banking. The two are have also expressed the desire to sell water but linked due to the fact that as reservoirs are it is yet unknown if, or to what degree, they drawn down, more storage space is created for will be allowed to participate in the market. potential banking of conserved water. Many on Several recent events have begun to shape the Colorado have seen water banking as a way how the market for water transfers in the

62 Legal, Political, and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable River Basin Management

lower basin might develop. Intrastate transfers Third, interstate transfers may not occur for have already taken place without much contro- a period of time because the current structure versy and were instigated and managed by the of the Law of the River now allows lower basin individual parties involved. Already, with the states to use the unused entitlements of other Bureau’s approval, numerous irrigation dis- lower basin states. California is the only U.S. tricts of the lower basin have entered into state in the Colorado River basin currently transfer agreements with urban areas within using or exceeding its full basic entitlement. their state, moving water from low-valued A formal water transfer between California agricultural uses to higher-valued urban uses. and another party at this time would equate With the exception of a successful groundwater to California paying for something that it banking program between Arizona and urban now receives free. Until Arizona and Nevada water purveyors in southern Nevada and reach their full apportionments, there is little southern California, interstate transfers and pressure for California to enter into a formal exchanges have proven more complicated and transfer agreement. controversial. Since there appears to be some time before At the state level, Nevada and California are interstate water transfers become common, the thirsty potential buyers while Arizona is there is an opportunity to begin defining an the well-endowed water holder. Also, within ideal water market. Whether interstate water each state there are individual interests, transfers will have a positive or negative affect including those which are seeking water and on the river’s mainstem ecosystems and delta those that are able to sell. However, water has yet to be seen. While transfers to date have transfers between states will most likely take a resulted in negligible environmental impacts, few years to come to fruition for a number of there is tremendous potential for water trans- reasons. First, due to a failed interstate transfer fers to aid ecosystem restoration in the future. between urban water purveyors in California Like water banking schemes, if developed with and Nevada, California has temporarily post- environmental considerations in mind, water poned negotiating any further transfers. An transfers and exchanges represent potential net effort by Metropolitan Water District of benefits for aquatic ecosystems and could lead Southern California (MWD) to include the to a more sustainable patterns of water use. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) in a Future water transfers structured to include a previously arranged conservation program with surcharge or public trust fee could provide a California irrigation district failed due to vast water or capital for environmental restoration public outcry and eventual intervention by and maintenance. the California state government.11 Second, in 1995 Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt made it clear that he will only D. THE ABSENCE OF look favorably upon, and therefore authorize, ENVIRONMENTAL interstate transfers that have wide “political CONSIDERATIONS IN consensus” (Babbitt 1995). Given the current political climate regarding issues of the INTERNATIONAL TREATIES Colorado River, it is unlikely that an interstate Almost no language in international treaties transfer could take place without objections between the United States and Mexico explicit- from some stakeholder in the lower basin. An ly deals with environmental considerations. example of this was Arizona’s fierce condemna- This remains an obstacle to sustainable river tion of the MWD-SNWA partnership. management and, more specifically, restora-

11 Environmental groups in California claimed that the MWD-SNWA “partnership,” was not in the interests of the state as a whole, because of the risk of increased MWD reliance on water resources from the northern portion of the state, including the ecologically and politically sensitive Bay-Delta region. In the beginning of 1996, California’s governor, Pete Wilson, asked MWD to postpone any interstate transfers until after California’s Colorado River interests could reach a consensus position on issues pertaining to the Colorado River (Western Water 1996). With former federal judge Abraham Sofare serving as a facilitator, current closed-door discussions between the six California water users of Colorado River water and the Colorado River Board of California are in progress.

63 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

tion of the delta. Water users in the U.S. por- areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tucson, tion of the basin have voiced concern that any Tijuana, and San Diego. Also, commercial water reallocated for delta restoration and shrimping and fishing industries in the Upper maintenance would never reach its intended Gulf that have reached their nadir in recent use due to the high decades could possibly be reinvigorated with likelihood of it being added inflows to the delta. Recovery of fish diverted by agricultur- populations, however, will also depend on al interests once it modified fishing practices in the Gulf and crosses the border enforcement of fishing restrictions into Mexico. Unless by Mexico. there were assurances For the above reasons, restoring the delta that reallocated envi- should not be seen as merely an altruistic ronmental water was endeavor. Interests on both sides of the border not going to be divert- stand to gain from a healthy estuarine system. ed for human uses, it Since U.S. interests account for a majority of is highly unlikely that the river’s water use and entitlements and basin states would also stand to benefit from a restored delta, The Cienega de Santa Clara now supports the largest wetland agree to a delta assistance must be provided from north of the habitat remaining in the delta. (Courtesy of Dale Pontius) restoration program. border. Given the current legal framework and Another problem is the fact that Mexico has distribution of water entitlements, a binational legal entitlements to less than 10 percent of approach is the only viable alternative for delta the river’s average annual flow. This makes it restoration. both unrealistic and inequitable to assume that Mexico has sole responsibility for delta restoration. Given the current legal framework and distribution of water entitlements in the basin, any successful ecosystem restoration program for the delta will require a cooperative binational effort, and most likely a formal international agreement between the two countries. A cooperative international project to augment water supplies to the delta stands to produce a host of recreational and economic benefits that should not be overlooked. Using California’s Restoring the delta should not be seen as San Francisco merely an altruistic endeavor. Interests Bay–Sacramento/San on both sides of the border stand to gain Joaquin River delta from a healthy estuarine system. estuary as a comparison, numerous recreational industries could flourish in the Colorado River delta region. Birdwatching, duck hunting, sport fishing, kayaking, and boating represent potential sources of income for local communities once the delta is restored. Given the variety of waterfowl and other wildlife endemic to the area, there is also great potential for ecotourism in the region. Increased fish populations such as those of the totoaba, which utilize delta areas as spawning grounds, could draw anglers from the urban

64 Recommendations

VII. Recommendations

he lower Colorado River basin is sider to be both high priorities and politically beset by a series of serious environ- and socially equitable. mental, institutional, political, and Tsocial problems related to water Negotiate an Environmental allocation and use. In particular, unsustainable Component to the 1944 Colorado use of groundwater, overallocation and mis- allocation of total water resources, and substan- River Treaty tial threats to significant ecological resources Any agreement to meet basic environmental must all be resolved at a time when demands needs, particularly in the lower reaches of the for the limited resources of the basin are river and in the delta region, must involve increasing. This report has summarized the international cooperation and agreement. nature of the problems in the basin, described Permitting additional releases of water for the explicit criteria and goals for long-term sustain- delta will not benefit ecosystem health if that able water management and planning, and water is appropriated by other water users made some suggestions for policy tools, tech- before it can reach the delta and upper Sea nologies, and strategies for reaching those of Cortez. Changes in timing of flows and goals. We summarize here the most important in water quality of those recommendations. (including tempera- As a fundamental principle, therefore, ture and salinity) all parties should acknowledge the need have far reaching to both identify basic environmental A. ALLOCATE WATER TO consequences that needs in the basin and to allocate MEET BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL require discussion, the water to meet them. WATER NEEDS IN THE BASIN negotiation, and agreement, similar to that reached in Minute The sustainability criteria defined earlier in 242, when the problem of the quality of water this paper recommend that the basic water delivered to Mexico was finally resolved. needs of ecosystems be met. While defining A comparable agreement is necessary to meet and quantifying these needs is difficult, failing environmental water needs on both sides of to meet them will lead to continued degrada- the border. tion of the environmental health of the Colorado River basin. As a fundamental principle, therefore, all parties should acknowledge Maintain Minimum Flows to the the need to both identify basic environmental Cienega de Santa Clara needs in the basin and to allocate the water to Although water flowing to the Cienega de meet them. There are many ways this can be Santa Clara consists almost entirely of agricul- done — through minimum flow requirements tural return flows from the U.S., this water is in rivers, through enforced water quality stan- vital to the survival of the largest remaining dards in sensitive areas, through explicit alloca- wetland in the region. Operation of the Yuma tion of water to environmental purposes, and desalting plant or other actions that would cut so on. In addition to identifying needs, howev- these flows should not be permitted. In order er, there must be reasonable and acceptable to make deliveries to the Cienaga permanent, ways of meeting those needs. Water can be the language of the Salinity Control Act of 1974 conserved by current users and reallocated, will most likely have to be modified. legislation can alter current legal entitlements in favor of the environment, or environmental interests can purchase or lease water. Restore Minimum Flows to the Ultimately, the choice of policy will depend on Colorado River Delta a wide range of political, social, and economic Some minimum amount of water must be factors. Below, we identify a few that we con- allocated and guaranteed to restore at least

65 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

part of the formerly rich Colorado River delta. for water efficiency improvements and reallo- This paper has offered a variety of options for cations, far more detailed information on cur- obtaining that water, including agricultural rent uses is needed. reforms, urban conservation, and explicit Groundwater withdrawals and use are inade- political guarantees. quately monitored and managed. Data on the quantity and quality of groundwater withdrawals is missing in many regions, making it B. END NON-RENEWABLE difficult to know the extent and severity of GROUNDWATER USE IN THE non-sustainable water use. BASIN Another fundamental criterion for sustainable water use is to maintain the renewability of the D. RESTRUCTURE WATER resource. The massive and long-term over- INSTITUTIONS TO PROMOTE pumping of groundwater resources in nearly SUSTAINABLE WATER every region in the lower basin is unsustain- PLANNING AND USE able and reduces options available to future generations. An explicit goal of water manage- Improve the Participation of All ment in the Colorado basin as a whole should Affected Parties in Colorado River therefore be the elimination of long-term over- Decision Making draft of groundwater. Annual groundwater One of the principles of sustainable water plan- overdraft can continue in regions that receive ning and use enunciated by the United Nations sufficient recharge in wet years to compensate, and other international water agencies and but long-term average overdraft should no groups is the fundamental need for democratic longer be considered an acceptable form of participation in decision making. Because of water supply. the size of the Colorado basin and the large number of interest groups affected by any deci- C. FILL WATER DATA AND sion on the river, effective public participation INFORMATION GAPS IN THE is a real challenge. Nevertheless, without such participation, future effective management of REGION the basin will be exceedingly difficult. While an enormous amount of information and research has been done on the shared water Form an Overarching International resources between the U.S. and Mexico, and on River Basin Commission the Colorado River Basin in particular, consid- Time has proven that regionally, politically, erable gaps in information, data, and knowl- and topically fragmented approaches to edge remain. These gaps hinder the develop- Colorado River management no longer work. ment of an acceptable and broad set of recom- A cooperative effort between the federal, state, mendations and solutions to current basin and international agencies that manage and problems. regulate water, as well as between the various Among the most severe gaps is the lack of basin interests (urban, agricultural, environ- clear information on the amount, quality, and mental) that depend on the resource is timing of water required to satisfy basic ecolog- required to remedy the problems of the ical needs in the basin. In particular, research Colorado River. Such a collaborative effort is needed on the water needs of endangered could manifest itself in the form of a more and threatened species and on the water needs effective and comprehensive river basin com- of the delta region and the marshes that are mission, with open and direct connections to found at the mouth of the river. the other institutions and organizations that Another major gap in knowledge is detailed play a role in decisionmaking and policy. data on water use, particularly in Mexico, but The general role of a river basin commis- also in the United States. In order to plan for sion would be to develop a comprehensive, future water use and to identify opportunities integrated, environmentally sustainable, long-

66 Recommendations

term management plan for the Colorado River. er to secure it from the federal government, By taking a comprehensive look at an entire otherwise they have feuded amongst them- river system, and by involving all affected selves. Left to their own devices, the states of stakeholders, it will be easier to solve both the lower Colorado Basin have demonstrated local and basin-wide problems. Specifically, the little ability to work together to resolve differ- river basin commission can work to: ences efficiently or even peacefully.12 • develop a “vision” for what that river’s At the same time, the power of federal agen- aquatic ecosystems could or should look like cies must be complemented by far broader rep- in the future; resentation of non-governmental interests in the region, including federal and state watch- • find equitable and efficient ways of imple- dog groups, environmental and community menting some of the proposed solutions to interests, and research and academic organiza- basin problems, including water banking, tions. Any long-term plan for managing the water marketing, reservoir operations, and Colorado must be established through consen- infrastructure changes; and sus, using input from the broad coalitions and • create and oversee mechanisms that supply communities that are part of the basin. The water for ecosystem restoration and mainte- commission should provide a forum where all nance for the Colorado River mainstem and basin interests can be heard and where consen- the delta. sus can be reached through discussion rather than litigation. The structure of the commission could take many forms. One possible format could be one E. APPLY OTHER TOOLS FOR similar to California’s San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary REACHING A SUSTAINABLE CALFED process. In this process (described in VISION IN THE COLORADO detail in Appendix B), federal and state agen- BASIN cies as well as a range of private interests have been working to develop a consensus on a Once Basic Human and Ecological long-term management strategy for the Bay- Needs are Met, Water Should be Delta. A Colorado River basin commission Considered an Economic Good could adopt a similar format to that of The prevailing notion that provision of water CALFED, drawing from its successes. While it should be free or highly subsidized is no longer is essential that all stakeholders are represent- acceptable in an era when competition is ed in the commission, the federal governments increasing over scarce water resources. Where of the U.S. and Mexico are likely to continue to water is plentiful in relation to overall need play a leading role in the river’s management and demand, there is little reason to focus on and, thus, also in the basin commission. allocation or use efficiency. But in regions like There are few alternatives to strong federal the Colorado basin, allocating among compet- leadership, as basin states have consistently ing uses requires incorporating economic con- proven their inability to resolve differences siderations and values. Specific economic tools without federal intervention. Historically, for efficient water use and allocations include: states have primarily worked to serve their • Properly designed pricing structures to own interests, which have typically been to promote water conservation and efficiency, maximize consumptive use of the river’s water. and encourage reuse and recycling; At times when funding has been needed to build storage, flood control, and delivery sys- • Low-interest loans to make it more attrac- tems along the river, they have worked togeth- tive for water users to invest in conservation

12 Examples of this are Arizona’s governor, B.B Moeur, calling out the Arizona National Guard in 1933 to stop the building of Parker Dam, the twelve years of litigation between California and Arizona and Nevada leading to the 1963 Supreme Court decision, and most recently, the disintegration of the Lower Basin Technical Committee.

67 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

and more efficient technologies; Allocation Efficiency Should be • Water depletion taxes on groundwater Improved overdraft to raise government revenue When overall availability of water is less than while discouraging inefficient resource the total demand for water, decisions about consumption; allocation must be made. For some uses, like • Increased assessments instituted on all uses maintaining certain environmental goods and of Colorado River water to help pay for “pub- services, water may be indispensable. For oth- lic good” uses of the river such as ecosystem ers, the value of the use varies enormously and restoration and maintenance; must be considered in any allocation decisions. Where the “market” operates effectively, deci- • Voluntary water transfers to move water sions can often be left to the market. But when from low-valued uses to higher-valued uses. market operations are hindered by subsidies, Community participation in decisions to hidden values, unquantified benefits of water move water from a region should be a use, and so on, allocation decisions may be necessary condition of any transfer; made inefficiently. This is particularly true in • Water surcharges on all voluntary water the agricultural sector, where allocations of transfers of Colorado River water to provide water to low-valued, highly water intensive funds for environmental restoration; crops can disproportionately consume scarce resources. Reallocating water in the agricultur- • A surcharge or fee on water conserved by al sector can reduce overall water demand a basin user and banked on the Colorado while still sustaining a healthy agricultural mainstem to provide water for environmen- community and industry. tal protection.

Improvements in the Efficiency of Conclusions Water Use Should be a Higher A sustainable vision for the lower Colorado Priority than Creating New Supply River basin can be identified, described, and, The Colorado is one of the most heavily con- we believe, reached. Such a vision will include trolled rivers in the world. As a result, the con- restoring and maintaining some of the unique struction of any new environmental and ecological resources of the supply infrastructure region, including the river delta and the endan- Improvements in the efficiency of water in the Colorado River gered native fisheries, eliminating unsustain- use should be a higher priority — and basin is likely to be able use of the resource — particularly ground- in the end will be more productive — opposed for environ- water overdraft, and improving institutional than projects to develop new supplies. mental, economic, structures to incorporate the viewpoints of the and social reasons. At many diverse interests groups of the river. the same time, improvements in the efficiency The answers do not lie in developing new of agricultural, residential, and industrial water technologies or finding new sources of supply, use, through application of existing technology, but in rethinking how to prioritize among the appear to be substantially less expensive than many competing uses, given the resources that the marginal cost of new supply. These factors are available and the values that need to be suggest that improvements in the efficiency of sustained. This approach has the best chance water use should be a higher priority — and in of reducing the risks of water conflicts and eco- the end will be more productive — than pro- logical collapse for the region as a whole and jects to develop new supplies. for moving forward into a sustainable 21st century.

68 Bibliography

VIII. Bibliography

Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service (AASS). California Department of Water Resources 1994. “1994 Arizona Agricultural Statistics.” (CDWR). 1994. “California Water Plan Phoenix, Arizona. Update.” Final Bulletin 160-93. Sacramento, California. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 1996. “Concept Paper: A Program California Department of Water Resources to Bank Additional Colorado River Water in (CDWR). 1994a. “Urban Water Use in Arizona.” January 1996. Phoenix, Arizona. California.” Final Bulletin 166-4. Sacramento, California. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 1994. “Arizona Water Resources Carothers S.W. and B.T. Brown. 1991. The Assessment.” Volume I and II. Colorado River Through Grand Canyon. Phoenix, Arizona. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 1991. “Second Management Plan Carrier, J. 1991. “The Colorado: A River 1990-2000: Pinal Active Management Area.” Drained Dry,” National Geographic, Phoenix, Arizona. June 1991. Arizona Department of Water Resources Checchio, E., and B.G. Colby. 1993. “Indian (ADWR). 1987. “Overview of the Arizona Water Rights: Negotiating the Future. “ Groundwater Management Code.” Water Resources Research Center. Phoenix, Arizona. The University of Arizona College of Agriculture. Tucson, Arizona. Babbitt, B. 1995. Keynote Address to Colorado River Water Users Association’s 50th City of San Jose, Brown and Caldwell Annual Convention. Las Vegas, Nevada. Consultants, and Department of Water December 8, 1995. Resources. 1990. “Case Studies of Industrial Water Conservation in the San Jose Area.” Black & Veatch. 1995. “1995 California Water Sacramento, California. Charge Survey.” Management Consulting Division. Irvine, California. Coache, B. Nevada State Engineer’s Office, personal communication, May 1996. Burton, L. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of the Law. University Press Colorado River Board of California (CRBC). of Kansas. 1996. “Water Issues Update: Maximizing Utilization of Colorado River Water for Bates, S. F., D.H. Getches, L.J. MacDonnell, California.” Testimony of Gerald and C.F. Wilkinson. 1993. Searching out the Zimmerman, Executive Director, to the Headwaters. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. March 19, 1996. Bertoldi, G.L. 1992. “Subsidence and consolida- tion in alluvial aquifer systems.” In the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Proceedings of the 18th Biennial (CRBSCF). 1993. “Water Quality Standards Conference on Groundwater, U.S. for Salinity: Colorado River System.” Geological Survey. pp. 62-74. Final Report. October 1993.

California Department of Water Resources Comición Nacional del Agua (CNDA). 1990. (CDWR). 1993. “California Water Plan “Proyecto de Modernizacion de Areas de Update.” Draft Bulletin 160-93, November Riego Valles de Mexicali, B.C. y San Luis 1993, Sacramento, California. Río Colorado, Sonora.”

69 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Comición Nacional del Agua (CNDA). 1991. Flug, M. and W.L. Jackson. 1993. “Emerging “Caracteristicas de los Distritos de Riego: Role for Natural, Cultural, and Ano Agricola 1990.” Volumen I. Regiones: Environmental Resource Issues: The Noroeste, Centro Norte y Noreste. Colorado River Experience.” Water Informe Estadistico Num. 5, Epoca 2. Resources Bulletin, June 1993, pp. 577-586. Noviembre de 1991. Geraghty, J.J., D.W. Miller, F. Van Der Leeden, Curry, F. 1994. Memorandum (with attach- and F.L. Troise. 1973. Water Atlas of the ments) to The Commission, United States. Water Information Center. “Implementation of Ordering Paragraph Port Washington, New York. No. 5 of Decision No. 94-06-033, closing Phase Two of the Water Risk Investigation.” Gleick, P.H. 1988. “The effects of future Public Utilities Commission, climatic changes on international water San Francisco, California. October 20, 1994. resources: the Colorado River, the United States, and Mexico.” Policy Sciences Vol. 21, pp. 23-39. Department of Finance (DOF). 1994. California Statistical Abstract. Compilation of U.S. Gleick, P.H. 1996. “Basic water requirements Department of Commerce, Bureau of for human activities: Meeting basic needs.” Economic Analysis data. Water International, Vol. 21, pp. 83-92. Sacramento, California.

Dongoske, K.E. 1996. “Integrating Native Gleick, P., P. Loh, S. Gomez, and J. Morrison. American Economic and Cultural Interests 1995. California Water 2020: A Sustainable into the Colorado River Basin.” Paper pre- Vision. Pacific Institute for Studies in pared for the Colorado River Workshop, Development, Environment, and Security. Phoenix, Arizona, February 1996. Oakland, California.

Glenn, E.P., C. Lee, R. Felger, and S. Zengel. Dziegielewski, B., E. Opitz, and G. Henfling. 1996. “Water Management Impacts on the 1991. “Municipal and Industrial Water Use Wetlands of the Colorado River Delta, in the Metropolitan Water District Service Mexico,” Conservation Biology, in press. Area: Interim Report No. 4.” Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., Report to Glenn, E. P., Environmental Research the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Laboratory, personal communication, California, Carbondale, Illinois. May 1996.

Eden, S. and M.G. Wallace. 1992. “Arizona Glenn, E.P., R.S. Felger, A. Burquez, and D.S. Water: Information and Issues.” Water Turner. 1992. “Cienega de Santa Clara: Resources Research Center. University of Endangered Wetland in the Colorado River Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. Delta, Sonora, Mexico, Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 32, Fall 1992, pp. 818-824. Erie, L.J., O.F. French, D.A. Bucks, and K. Harris. 1982. “Consumptive Use of Water Governor’s Central Arizona Project Advisory by Major Crops in the Southwestern United Committee (GCAPAC). 1993. “Description States.” Conservation Research Report No. of the Central Arizona Project.” Prepared 29, Agricultural Research Service. U.S. by Arizona Department of Water Department of Agriculture. Resources. Phoenix, AZ. Washington, D.C. Governor’s Central Arizona Project Advisory Federal Emergency Management Agency Committee (GCAPAC). 1993a. “Final Report (FEMA). 1983. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Recommendations.” Prepared by Report. FEMA-691-DR-AZ. pp.41. Arizona Department of Water Resources. Washington, D.C. Phoenix, AZ.

70 Bibliography

High Plains Underground Water Conservation Karpiscak, M.M., K.E. Foster, and N. Schmidt. District. 1995. The Cross Section, Vol. 41, 1990. “Residential Water Conservation: No. 6., June 1995. Casa Del Agua.” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 6. pp. 939-948. Howe, C. W. and W. A. Ahrens. 1988. “Water Resources of the Upper Colorado River Kneese, A.V., and G. Bonem. 1986. Basin: Problems and Policy Alternatives, in “Hypothetical Shocks to Water Allocation M. T. El-Ashry and D. C. Gibbons, eds., Institutions in the Colorado Basin.” In: Water and Arid Lands of the Western New Courses for the Colorado River: Major United States, World Resource Institute, Issues for the Next Century. G.D. Washington, D.C. Weatherford and F.L. Brown, (Editors). University of New Mexico Press. Holway, J., Arizona Department of Water Albuquerque, New Mexico. pp. 87-108. Resources, personal communication, May 1996. Kuranz, C.B. 1996. “Tucson’s Changing Landscape: A Response to State Ingram, H., A.D. Tarlock, and C.R. Oggins. Conservation Requirements.” in 1991. “The Law and Politics of the Proceedings of Conserv’96: Responsible Operation of Glen Canyon Dam,” in Water Stewardship, American Water Works Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Association, 1996. Environmental Studies. Water Science and Technology Board. Colorado River Ecology León, M.V., T.R. McGuire, and H. Aubert. 1993. and Dam Management. National Academy “Suggestions for a Sustainable Fishery.” in Press. Washington, D.C. McGuire, T. R. and J. B. Greenberg, eds., Maritime Community and Biosphere Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reserve: Crisis and Response in the Upper (IPCC). 1995. Climate Change 1995: Gulf of California. Occasional Paper No. 2, Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation. Bureau of Applied Research in Working Group II Summary for Anthropology. University of Arizona, Policymakers. World Meteorological Tucson, Arizona. Organization/United Nations Environment Programme. Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac, Oxford University Press, New York. International Boundary and Water Commission. 1992. “Flow of the Colorado Loh, P. and A. Steding. 1996. The Palo Verde River and Other Western Boundary Test Land Fallowing Program: A Model for Streams and Related Data.” Future California Water Transfers? Pacific Western Water Bulletin 1992. Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Irrigation Journal, “1993 Irrigation Survey,” Oakland, California. January-February 1994. MacDonnell, L. and B. Driver. 1996. Jager, J. and H. L. Ferguson. 1991. Climate “Rethinking Colorado River Governance.” Change: Science, Impacts and Policy. Paper prepared for the Colorado River Proceedings of the Second World Climate Workshop, Phoenix, Arizona, Conference Cambridge University Press, February 1996. Cambridge.

Johnson, R.R. 1991. “Historic Changes in MacDougall, N.W., M. Hanemann, and D. Vegetation Along the Colorado River in the Zilberman. 1992. “The Economics of Grand Canyon.” in Committee to Review Agricultural Drainage,” October 1992, sub- the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, mitted to Central Valley Regional Water Water Science and Technology Board. Quality Control Board, Department of Colorado River Ecology and Dam Agricultural and Resource Economics, Management. National Academy Press. U.C. Berkeley. Washington, D.C.

71 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Maddock, T. S. and W.G. Hines. 1995. “Meeting Nash, L. and P.H. Gleick. 1993. “The Colorado Future Water Supply Needs: A Southwest River Basin and Climatic Change: The Perspective.” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. Sensitivity of Streamflow and Water Supply 31, No. 2, April 1995. to Variations in Temperature and Precipitation.” U.S. Environmental Manzione, M., B. Jordan, and W.O. Maddus. Protection Agency, EPA230-R-93-009, 1991. “California Industries Cut Water Use,” Washington, D.C. 121 pp. Journal of the AWWA, October 1991. Nash, L.L. and P.H. Gleick. 1991. “The sensitivi- Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ty of streamflow in the Colorado Basin to (MWRA). 1991. “MWRA Honors Spalding climatic changes.” Journal of Hydrology. Sports Worldwide for Water Conservation.” Vol. 125, pp. 221-241. news release. Boston, Massachusetts. September 27, 1991. Nevada Colorado River Commission (NCRC). 1990. “Colorado River Water Budget.” McGuire, T.R., W.B. Lord, M.G. Wallace, editors. Las Vegas, Nevada 1993. Indian Water in the New West. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NDCNR). 1995. “State Meko, D., C.W. Stockton, and W.R. Boggess. Water Policy: Guiding Principles, Policies, 1995. “The Tree-Ring Record of Severe and Issues.” First Draft, revised March Sustained Drought.” Water Resources 1995. Division of Water Planning. Bulletin. Volume 31, Number 5. Carson City, Nevada. October 1995. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NDCNR). 1992. “Nevada Metropolitan Water District of Southern Water Facts.” Division of Water Planning. California (MWD). 1995. “The Regional Carson City, Nevada. Urban Water Management Plan.” Los Angeles, California. Peart, L.A., K.D. Warner, and Black & Veatch. 1993. “Tucson’s Rate Structure Changes Milliman, J.D. and R.H. Meade. 1983. Designed to Strengthen Conservation Worldwide Delivery of River Sediment to Pricing Incentives,” in American Water the Oceans.” Journal of Geology. Works Association, Proceedings of Conserv 91(1), pp. 1-21. ’93: The New Water Agenda, Denver, Colorado. Minckley, W.L. 1991. “Native Fishes of the Grand Canyon Region: An Obituary?” in Postel, S. 1985. Conserving Water: The Untapped Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Alternative, Worldwatch Paper 67, Environmental Studies, Water Science and Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. Technology Board. Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management. National Academy Postel, S. 1992. Last Oasis: Facing Water Press. Washington, D.C. Scarcity, W.W. Norton, New York.

Postel, S. 1995. “Where Have All the Rivers Mitchell, D.L. and M. Hanemann. 1994. Report Gone?” Worldwatch. May-June 1995. to the California Urban Water Conservation Council, “Setting Urban Water Rates for Postel, S. 1996. “Forging a Sustainable Water Efficiency and Conservation: A Discussion Strategy,” in L.R. Brown et al., State of the of Issues.” M Cubed. Oakland, California. World 1996, W.W. Norton, New York. Murphy, T. 1995. “Low Impact Agricultural Puffer, M., Metropolitan Water District of Irrigation.” Irrigation Journal. March 1995. Southern California, personal communica- pp. 8-12. tion, June 1992.

72 Bibliography

Reich, P.L. , editor. 1984. “Statistical Abstract of Sunding, D., D. Zilberman, R. Howitt, A. Dinar, the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands.” UCLA Latin and N. MacDougall. 1994. “The Costs of American Center Publications. Reallocating Water from Agriculture.” Los Angeles, California. University of California, Berkeley.

Ricci, H., Nevada State Engineer’s Office, Sweetman, W., Spalding Sports Worldwide, personal communication, May 1996. personal communication, March 1992.

Robles, A., Conservation International, Tucson Water. 1984. “Energy Innovation personal communication, February 1995. Through Applied Technology.” Tucson, Arizona. San Diego Water Authority (SDWA). 1996. San Diego Water Authority press release. Tucson Water. undated. “Conservation June 5, 1996. Programs,” Tucson, Arizona.

Schumann, H.H., R.L. Laney, and L.S. Cripe. United Nations. 1992. “Earth Summit Agenda 1987. “Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures 21: The United Nations Programme of Caused by Groundwater Depletion in Action from Rio.” New York. Chapter 18 Southern Arizona.” Regional Aquifer Systems of Agenda 21 is devoted to freshwater of the United States: Southwest Alluvial resources. Basins of Arizona. American Water Resources Association Monograph Series No. 7. Bethesda, Maryland. UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research. 1994 telefax. Smith, R.T. and R. J. Vaughn. 1994. “AZ DWR Releases Update on Indian Water Rights United States. 1944. Utilization of Waters of the Settlement,” Water Intelligence Monthly, Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio March 1994. Grande. Treaty Between the United States and Mexico. Treaty Series 994. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). undated telefax. “Water Resources.” U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1989. Handbook of North American Indians. Volumes 9 and Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). 10. Smithsonian. Washington D.C. 1996. “Water Resource Plan.” January, 1996. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. undated. “Managing the Lower Colorado River to State of California. 1991. “Conceptual Approach Meet Contemporary Needs”(Fact Sheet), for Reaching Basin States Agreement on Boulder City, Nevada. Interim Operation of Colorado River System Reservoirs, California’s Use of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1995 telefax. Colorado River Water Above Its Basic “Estimate of 1995 Colorado River Water Apportionment, and Implementation of an Use.” May 16, 1995. Boulder City, Nevada. Interstate Water Bank.” Prepared for the Colorado River Basin States Meeting in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. “Indian Denver, Colorado August 28, 1991. Trust Asset Policy and NEPA Implementing Procedures: Questions and Answers About Stockton, C.W., and G.C. Jacoby. 1976. “Long- the Policy and Procedures.” Draft Term Surface Water Supply and Streamflow March 1994. Levels in the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Lake Powell Research Project. Bulletin No. 18. Institute of Geophysics and Planetary U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994a. “Draft Physics. University of California Regulations for Administering Entitlements Los Angeles. California. to Colorado River Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin.” May 1994. Boulder City, Nevada.

73 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Western Water. 1996. “Colorado River “Recovery Program for the Endangered Controversies.” March/April 1996. Fishes of the Upper Colorado River.” Publication of the Water Education Winter 1995. Denver, Colorado. Foundation. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995a. Wichelns, D. and D. Cone. 1992. “Tiered pric- “Lower Colorado River Ecoregion Plan.” ing motivates Californians to conserve November 1995. water.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March/April 1992. vol. 47. no. 2. pp. 139-144. U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. “Summary of Ground-Water Conditions in Arizona, 1987- Wigington, R. and D. Pontius. 1996. “Toward 90.” by D.W. Anning and N.R. Duet. Open Range-Wide Integration of recovery File Report 94-476. Tucson, Arizona. Programs for the Big, Native Fishes of the Colorado River,” Draft Paper prepared for Vickers, A. 1991. “The Emerging Demand-Side the Colorado River Workshop, Phoenix, Era in Water Management.” Journal Arizona, February 1996. AWWA. October 1991. Williams, A.A. 1983. “Cocopa.” In Alfonso Vickers, A. 1993. “The Energy Policy Act: Ortiz, ed. Handbook of North American Assessing its Impact on Utilities.” Journal Indians. vol. 10. Smithsonian. Washington AWWA: Vol. 85, No. 8, August 1993. D.C. pp. 56-62. Wilson, F. 1994. “A Fish Out of Water: A Wade, W.W., J.A. Hewitt, and M.T. Nussbaum. Proposal for International Instream Flow 1991. “Cost of Industrial Water Shortages.” Rights in the Lower Colorado River,” prepared by Spectrum Economics, Inc. for Colorado Journal of International the California Urban Water Agencies. Environmental Law and Policy. Vol. 5. San Francisco, California. pp. 249. Waggoner, P.E. (ed.) 1990. Climate Change and Wilson, P., H. Ayer, and G. Snider. 1984. Drip U.S. Water Resources. John Wiley and Irrigation for Cotton: Implications for Farm Sons, Inc., New York. Profits, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Wahl, R. W. 1989. “Markets for Federal Water: Economic Report No. 517, Subsidies, Property Rights, and the Bureau Washington, D.C. of Reclamation.” Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Waller, T.S. 1993. “The Politics of Agricultural Future. Oxford University Press. New York. Water Conservation in the Border Region of the Californias.” UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor Michigan.

Water Strategist. 1994. “Indian Water Marketing: A Realizable Vision?” Vol. 8, No. 3, October 1994.

Waterweek. 1996. “Arizona water company fined for overpumping.” Waterweek Vol. 5, No. 12, p.4.

Weatherford, G.D. and G.C. Jacoby. 1975. “Impact of Energy Development on the Law of the River.” Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 13.

74 Appendix A

Appendix A: List of Federally-Listed Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Species at Risk which may occur in the Lower Colorado River Ecosystem (Source: USFWS 1995a)

ENDANGERED Reptiles: Desert tortoise (Mohave population) Mammals: (Gopherus agassizii) Hualapai Mexican vole Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) (Uma inortata) Birds: Plants: American peregrine falcon Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus sileri) (Falco peregrinus anatum) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Yuma clapper rail PROPOSED (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) ENDANGERED/THREATENED Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Reptiles: Fish: Flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) CANDIDATE CATEGORY I Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) Desert pupfish (Cypzinodon macularius) Birds: Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) California black rail Humpback chub (Gila cypha) (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda) Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) Plants: Paradox milk vetch Invertebrates: (Astragalus hoj-mgreniorum) Kanab ambersnail Fickeisen pincushion cactus (Pediocactus (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae) Plants: Kaibab plains cactus (Pediocactus paradinei) Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) Brady pincushion cactus (Pediocactus bradyi) SPECIES AT RISK Sentry milk vetch (Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax) Mammals: California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) THREATENED Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Birds: Greater western mastiff-bat (Eumops perotis californicus) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Navaho Mountain Mexican vole Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (Idicrotus mexicanus navaho)

75 The Sustainable Use of Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Hualapai southern pocket gopher Grand Wash springsnail (Pyrgu-lopsis bacchus) (Thomomys umbrinus hua lensis) Kingman springsnail (Pyrgulopsis conicus) Searchlight southern pocket gopher MacNeill sooty wing skipper (Thomomys umbrinus suboles) (Hesperopsis gracielae) Yuma hispid cotton rat California floater (Anodonta californiensis) (Sigmodon hispidus eremicus) Plants: Colorado River cotton rat (Sigmodon arizonae plenus) Dune sunflower (Helianthus niveus Marble Canyon kangaroo rat ssp. tephrodes) (Dipodomys microps leucotis) Sand food (Pholisma sonorae) Yavapai Arizona pocket mouse Virgin thistle (Cirsium virginensis) (Perognathus amplus amplus) Pima Indian-mallow (Abutilon parishii) Yuma puma (Fells concolor brovni) Yellow-flowered desert poppy (Arctomecon californica) Birds: Gumbo milk vetch (Astragalus ampullarius) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoricianus) Cliff milk vetch (Astragalus cremnophylax Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) var. myriorraphis) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Beaver Dam milk vetch (Astragalus geyeri Western least bittern var. triquetrus) (Ixobrychus exilis hesperis) Freckled milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus White-faced ibis (Great Basin population) var. ambiguus) (Plegadis chihi) Sheep Range milk vetch (Astragalus Western snowy plover musimonum) (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Camissonia confertiflora Mountain plover (Charadrius Montanus) Camissonia exilis Large-billed savannah sparrow Camissonia gouldii (Passerculus sandvichensis rostratus) Camissonia speculcola ssp. hesperia Tusayan rabbithrush Reptiles & Amphibians: (Chrysothamnus molestus) Arizona toad Cryptantha cinerea var. arenicola (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus) Ripley wild buckwheat (Eriogonum ripleyi) Chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus) Atwood wild buckwheat (Eriogonum Desert tortoise (Sonoran population) thompsonae var. atvoodii) (Gopherus agassizii) Kaibab bladderpod (Lesquerella kaibabensis) Rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata) Giant Spanish.needles Cowles fringe-toed lizard (Palafoxia gigantea var. arida) (Uma notata rufopunctata) Beaver Dam breadroot Lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis) (Pediomelum castoreum) Fish: Kane breadroot (Pediomelum epipsilum) Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) Penstemon albomarginatus Longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster) Cerbat beardtongue Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) (Penstemon bicolor ssp. roseus) Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis) Mt. Trumbull beardtongue (Penstemon distans) Desert sucker (Catostomus clarki) North Rim primrose (Primula hunneyellii) Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) Grand Canyon rose (Rosa stellata ssp. abyssa) Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis Grand Canyon catchfly (Silene rectiramea) mollispinis) Invertebrates: Cheese-weed owlfly (Oliarces clara) Grand Canyon cave psuedoscorpion (Archeolarca cavicola)

76 Appendix B

Appendix B: The CALFED Bay-Delta Process as a Model

n the early 1990s, California embarked on an challenged by the excluded party, delaying Iinnovative collaborative federal-state-civic action and ultimately solutions into the indefi- process in an attempt to resolve the long-stand- nite future. The creation of the Bay-Delta ing problems pertaining to the San Francisco Advisory Committee has already and will con- Bay/Sacramento-San Joquin River Delta tinue to foster more environmentally sound Estuary (Bay-Delta). This waterway sees the and socially equitable solutions for the Bay- outflow of 47 percent of the state’s total surface Delta Estuary. Through its on-going role of water runoff and provides freshwater to over advising and monitoring the CALFED program 20 million of the state’s residents (CDWR as it attempts to develop a comprehensive plan 1994). After years of conflict between federal for the Bay-Delta, the BDAC has helped ensure and state agencies trying to regulate and man- more balanced long-term solutions. age the Bay-Delta, a framework agreement was The lessons learned and framework estab- signed in June 1994, which formalized a coop- lished in the CALFED process can be of vital erative effort called the CALFED Bay-Delta interest to governmental agencies and stake- Program (CALFED). The broad goals of the holders of the Colorado River. More headway CALFED Bay-Delta process were to formulate was made during two years of the CALFED water quality standards, coordinate water pro- process than over the previous twenty years of ject diversions with regulatory requirements,1 conflict surrounding the Bay-Delta. While there and find long-terms solutions to problems in are certainly shortcomings with the current the Bay-Delta Estuary. CALFED process as it struggles toward a long- To assist the ten federal and state agencies term management strategy for the Bay-Delta involved in CALFED, a 30-member public advi- Estuary, the benefits are noteworthy. Drawing sory committee, representing urban, agricul- from its successes, officials of the Colorado tural, environmental, business, and fishing River basin can use the CALFED process as a interests was assembled. This Bay-Delta template when attempting to develop a river Advisory Committee (BDAC) played an instru- basin commission for the Colorado River. mental role in the negotiating and signing of the December 1994, Bay-Delta Accord. This monumental agreement established interim water quality standards for the Bay-Delta until future research provides the basis for permanent standards. The Delta Accord marked a radical departure from the legal confrontations of the past, representing the first time in California water history that environmental, agricultural, and urban interests were able to reach a consensus on such major issues. Underlying the success of the Bay-Delta Accord was the fact that all stakeholders were present at the bargaining table. Had any of the stakeholders been left out of the negotiation process, any agreement reached by the remaining interests would have been legally

1 The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, two of the largest water distribution systems of the state, now divert almost 20 percent of the normal inflow to the Delta in an average water year and a substantially larger fraction in dry years.